This is an outstanding method by which to debate this issue. I congratulate Ken for working it out. Political debates are as much for the public to assess the candidates, as they are for the information they provide. Thus, live debates are appropriate. However, in discussions of a scientific issue, assessment of the debaters, themselves, is not only unnecessary, but an undesirable distraction from the issue at hand. Any arguments that can be made live can also be made in written form which can then be carefully assessed for validity, and to which a proper response can be formulated. I strongly urge Paul to take this approach from now on when he issues challenges for debate of water fluoridation. The public will be much better served in this manner.
The standard lay person argument I would offer here is that there are few, if any studies of fluorides’ effects on people’s health at this level.Very few populations that are fluoridated get such alow level. That is because 0.7ppml is the new, lowest level of fluoridation which Fianna Fail brought into Ireland in 2007 after the US NRC advised fluoridation was too risky to continue at the higher level of 1ppm
But that should not make any difference .As you say it has been around for at least 6 years, and if anything it should strengthen the pro fluoride argument as the dosage is lower, But this was manly bought about because of dental fluorosis. A cosmetic discoloration of the teeth
Chris dental fluorosis a cosmetic discolouration …really perhap a little research is required …more like 1st symptom of F toxicity…ie tooooooo much F from all dietary sources including water
Talking about the need for research Ian – could you provide some citations, links, etc., to research supporting your claim that the questionable and mild fluorosis associated with fluoridation is a first symptom of F toxicity?
Seriously, that is an extremely important claim to make so should be backed up.
Ian, in the absence of valid evidence of a problem with fluoride toxicity related to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, it is invalid to demand proof that there is not. Such demands for proof of a negative are an endless process, as antifluoridationists will eternally make unsubstantiated claims then demand proof that they are not valid. A guess that dental fluorosis may be a sign of another problem is not valid evidence of anything.
There is no valid proof of any adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0,7 ppm.
May not be 1st symptom(if not the first what is that see is the first external symptom in humans) but definitely a sign of chronic F exposure, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21701193, from all sources …acute exposure eg eating a tube of tooth paste or a quantity of F based pesticide would cause more serve symptoms or even kill I thought this type of toxicity was so well known that references would not be necessary especially given that Ken,& Steven appear to be experts in this field of F chemistry & toxicity of F…… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity http://www.diagnose-me.com/symptoms-of/fluoride-toxicity.html http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Recognition+and+Management+of+Fluoride+Toxicity
Steve you when you say there is no valid proof of any adverse of water fluoridated at 0.7ppm but that’s pro-fluoridation argument, which do I agree with that statement, but scientifically just because there is no valid proof doesn’t prove that its safe, just because symptoms in humans are not apparent doesn’t mean a life time of total F ingestion is safe or whether there are or arenot adverse effects.
Ian. Failure to prove the non existence of something is not proof of its existence.
If you want to go through life terrified of things for which there is no evidence, more fool you.
Ian, you are still purposely confusing severe dental fluorosis which probably does indicate toxic intake levels of F, with questionable of very mild fluorosis which may be considered perfectly normal, cosmetic only and not evidence of toxic levels.
Severe fluorosis occurs where natural F levels are high or there is unusual high intake, such as by continuous eating of toothpaste.
You have not produced any evidence to support your claim that the questionable/mild dental fluorosis (that anti-fluoride people just label fluorosis) is at all an indication of toxic levels or internal poisoning.
Ken should certainly be considered an expert in Chemistry and Fluoride, but not I. I am not an expert in either, simply a healthcare professional who has done due diligence in seeking accurate information from reliable sources.
The study you reference in your first sentence makes no mention of concentration levels of fluoride. Yes, dental fluorosis can certainly occur with overexposure to fluoride during tooth forming years. However, the only dental fluorosis which may occur attributable to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm is mild to very mild. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which is generally only observable under close examination by a dental professional. It has no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al, have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more resistant to decay, this effect is not even considered to be undesirable by many, much less adverse.
— The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
What you state in your last paragraph is your desire to prove a negative, i.e. “there could possibly be a problem, therefore you must prove there is not one”. This is invalid science, and would be an endless process. In order to require proof that there is not a problem, there must first be valid evidence that a problem exists. There is none in regard to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.
Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity)
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity). By extension, the word may be metaphorically used to describe toxic effects on larger and more complex groups, such as the family unit or society at large.
Teeth[edit]
The only generally accepted adverse effect of fluoride at levels used for water fluoridation is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children’s teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and usually only an aesthetic concern. Compared to unfluoridated water, fluoridation to 1 mg/L is estimated to cause fluorosis in one of every 6 people (range 4–21), and to cause fluorosis of aesthetic concern in one of every 22 people (range 13.6–∞). Here, “aesthetic concern” is a term used in a standardized scale based on what adolescents would find unacceptable, as measured by a 1996 study of British 14-year-olds.[14]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
If you don’t agree I’m sure you can summit alteration to wikipedia
Steve in this debate you have canned anti fluoride site but you then you use pro-fluoride sites (The Journal of the American Dental Association.)
Ken
since you brought it up could tell us refer me to a paper outlining how much dental fluorsis represents toxicity of F( ie the level of fluorsis which represents start of toxicity) & what level of fluoride would need to be consumed or absorbed
Steve since your in the dental field you possibly could help in providing a definition which would clearly show when cosmetic becomes toxic…because I certainly at the moment from the above definition of toxicity cant discern a difference
Antifluoridationist websites are rife with out-of-context information, misinterpretation of study results, half-truths, and misinformation. They are managed and maintained by persons who are unqualified to understand science or healthcare. If you are equating these sites with the Journal of the American Dental Association, in discussion of a dental/healthcare issue, then I really don’t need to comment any further on that. The absolute absurdity speaks for itself.
It is of no concern to me, whatsoever, what Wikipedia has to say about dental fluorosis. I obtain my scientific information from far more authoritative sources.
If this will help your confusion, the 2006 NRC Committee which generated the report that antifluoridationists so frequently misuse, did not consider mild dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect. I’ve already explained this effect to you previously.
“when you say there is no valid proof of any vampires, but scientifically just because there is no valid proof doesn’t prove that there’s no vampires, just because vampires symptoms in humans are not apparent doesn’t mean blah, blah, blah…”
Anti-flurodiationists are not the sharpest tools in the box. It’s one painfully dumb argument after another.
Yep “name calling” really I thought we were adults I thought as a dentist Steve you would be concerned (http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/1302/m482656_v1_policy%20statement%206.5.1%20code%20of%20ethics%20for%20dentists.pdf) about what the exposure level of F which causes your patients to have dental fluorsis..
.but thank you & Cedric for your pro fluoride comments
All I was asking is for you, your dental Association of toxicologists, or any toxicologist, or any person regardless of qualification who has read a paper showing the level of total F intake which causes any dental fluorsis please supply the link
History F was introduced 1st introduced as additive to water around 1950
If its F is so good at 1 ppm why the sudden reduction in recent years(2011 I believe) to 0.7 ppm WOW we have a safety margin for toxicity of 0.3 ppm thats simply amazing protection for our children and it only took 50-60 years for the pro F people to recognize this
Ian, I imagine you have a lot invested in being able to label 0.7ppm in water fluoride as toxic.
Then you can run around mentioning it at every opportunity.
“toxic waste” this – “toxic levels of fluoride” that.
Knowing of course, that most people associate the term toxic with serious health damaging or life threatening cases of poisoning.
It becomes misleading. Deliberately so.
There is a term for it. It’s called being disingenuous.
Minor cosmetic discolouration with an associated and positive increase in dental health doesn’t fit the bill.
Recent studies and the increasing use of other forms of fluoride application have brought this change on.Usually dental fluorosis is a mild condition and as per normal the anti groups jump on it as a major condition to leach some mileage out of it to promote their fantasy. In saying that, is is not a copout, the water borne fluoride is still the best way to have a continuous supply of fluoride on the teeth, The so called high fluoride hit from toothpaste is not as regulated as the water borne method, and requires more input from the recipient in the form of remembering to brush your teeth twice a day.as well as not using too much, as this form of treatment can be 100 times higher than water borne fluoride. There are some households that dont even have a toothbrush each. Tooth paste is not top of the shopping list and these people are the most likely to have tooth decay due to the use of cheap soft drinks
Ian, I have no idea as to what “name calling” you refer, and really don’t care. What I post are facts. I also have no idea as to your point with the link to ADA ethics, and certainly couldn’t care less about that either. Antifluoridationists have so little regard for truth and ethics that is always amusing to me when one attempts to make such ridiculous allegations.
As far your question in regard to 0.7 ppm, the current recommended optimal level of fluoride as established by the US Department of Health and Human
Services is a range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm, the optimal level being that concentration at which will occur maximum dental decay prevention with no adverse effects. In 2011, in recognition of increased exposure to fluoride from dental products and other sources, since the optimal range was initially established, the US CDC recommended that the optimal range be eliminated, replaced with the optimal level simply being the low end of that range, which is 0.7 ppm. The US DHHS has not yet formally adopted that recommendation, but it is expected to do so.
This is an example of regulatory bodies doing their job of oversight exactly as they should do, and demonstrates that proper oversight is in place. It is not a negative as antifluoridationists, very predictably, attempt to portray it to be.
Knowing of course, that most people associate the term toxic with serious health damaging or life threatening cases of poisoning.
It’s funny how the English language keeps changing with these people.
Toxic used to mean, well, toxic.
Enormous used to be connected with bigness somehow.
Attacking someone etc.
These words in the hands of anti-fluoridationists are (dare I say it?)….diluted.
Cedric, Chris & Richard …all substances are toxic it is the amount….time relationship ….drinking too much water will kill if it consumed in too short a time frame
TOXICITY RATING FOR HUMANS (70 KG BODY WEIGHT)
Rating/Class Dose
SOURCE: Gosselin, et al. (1984). Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkens.
6. Super toxic 15 g/kg Water
Very good! So you DO actually understand that even water is toxic in improper amounts. In the correct concentration it is entirely safe to consume. Same with fluoride….toxic at improper levels, entirely safe at 0.7 ppm.
Yes Steve I understand a good deal of things….but what I don’t understand,and haven’t been able to find is the point which F becomes a toxin in humans?…ie what is the amount, from all sources, in my diet which causes toxicity
Food Composition tables do not give F amount in a particular foodstuff http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/nutrientables/pages/default.aspx
The Institute of Medicine has established an upper limit of daily fluoride intake before adverse effects may occur, long or short term, to be 10 mg. The CDC estimates that 75% of daily fluoride intake to be from the water. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (mg/liter=ppm). Using these figures, it is easy to determine your total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.
The average daily water consumption by adults is 2-3 liters. Even if one drinks an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day, the total fluoride intake is 5.6 mg, only slightly more than half the daily upper limit.
Cedric, Chris & Richard …all substances are toxic it is the amount….time relationship ….drinking too much water will kill if it consumed in too short a time frame….
Then bitching about water fluoridation being “toxic” is a stupid thing to do.
You’d have to work really, really hard to get a toxic level of fluoride from drinking water, in much the same way as you’d have work at drinking a toxic level of water.
…?…ie what is the amount, from all sources, in my diet which causes toxicity….
Seriously?
This was beyond your ability to find out?
Or did you think that science didn’t already know about this or something?
The mind boggles.
Google is not your friend.
These corrosive hazardous waste pollutants & co-contaminants aka ‘water fluoridation’ is not only in the water supplies it’s is of course, through our food chain and environment.
Corporate `sponsorship` of our Dental Schools in Australian Universities etc., is (allegedly) like leaving the wolves to mind the lambs. Many (allegedly) say that this is a most serious conflicts of interests and complete loss of ethics and integrity.
The informed and independently researched/unbiased members of the population are sick of the fact that for decades the Fluoridation Lobby remain so politically powerful and media powerful – and that’s the only way these dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc., (known as water fluoridation chemicals) (also added is aluminium sulphate) continues to be disposed of into our drinking water supplies and hence also contaminating our food chain – the truth never gets to the people by way of headlines in a totally controlled corporate mainstream media – this is appalling.
Also many of the population are still unaware because authorities lie and say the ‘fluoride’ is natural – this is absolutely deceptive and a cover-up.
This is what they are consuming in their water, of course it’s all through the food chain, and they bath their babies, kids, themselves and their pets in these hazardous waste pollutants – we the population, pets and environment polluted with this hazardous waste known as water fluoridation.
All thinking people must ask, who in their right minds would force an entire population to consume this in everything we eat, drink and bathe in, also ask why would Dentists and doctors fight to the death to enforce this pollutant on us all & our environment if as they say it is effective at reducing dental decay by between 30 & 60% thus reducing their income. What BS ! They say it is safe and effective and Australia wide and USA all in dental crisis after decades of the poison fluoridation commencing firstly in Australia 1953 and USA in 1945.
“Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2013, Article ID 439490, 13 pages, 2013. Richard Sauerheber, doi:10.1155/2013/439490. Available online at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses – Freedom of Information – South Australia Water Corp. Raw fluoridation chemical analyses of South Australia’s drinking water, listed below. This data has been scanned from original documents provided to Sapphire Eyes Productions by Dr. Andrew Harms and Ann Bressington. These documents show the toxic, heavy metal contaminants contained in the chemicals used to fluoridate your drinking water. These include lead, arsenic, mercury, uranium, and more. ‘FIRE WATER’ FILM SOURCE: http://tiny.cc/9oj4g
Source: http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/ Watch: http://www.firewaterfilm.com
Dr David Kennedy DDS speaking about how the EPA was ordered to lie about the safety of water fluoridation because it was/is bought and sold by industry: Water Fluoridation Regulations Are Based on Lies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrfORyiET3o
To quote Dr. Phillip R.N. Sutton, Formerly Academic Associate and Senior Research Fellow, Department Oral Medicine and Surgery, Dental School, University of Melbourne, Author of The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation (1996):
“We are all affected by this potentially dangerous fraud: The convincing of Governments and people generally that it is ethical, safe and beneficial to medicate, compulsorily, many millions of people throughout their lives with small but uncontrollable doses of a cumulative and very toxic substance because of the notion that it reduces the prevalence of dental decay. All this, although neither its safety nor any scientifically-proved reduction in the number of decayed teeth has been demonstrated.”
‘Fluoridation has not been shown to be safe and effective’
Cities in Canada are also abandoning the practice. The most recent are cities like Quebec City, Waterloo, Calgary and Windsor. Those cities finally decided to stop wasting their money on toxic waste (fluoridation chemicals) that not only are no longer effective to prevent decay but are likely harmful to humans and the environment.
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS
Professor Emeritus and former Head, Preventive Dentistry
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto http://www.madhunt.com/hardy-limebeck-column-20130930.html
~~
Dr. Robert Gammal BDS
To Fluoridate or Not
an ethical and health issue which affects everyone’s health
A Submission to Councils, Health Departments and People
October, 2013
Diane, I will allow your comment through this time – partly as an example of the very thing we do not want – a general screed unrelated to the article with copypasta and links to unreliable sources.
However, this post is just a list of the debate articles.
Could you please ensure future comments do relate to the article you are commenting under and hold back on the copypasta and irrelevant links?
Cedric Katesby
thanks for the reference to dr google please supply with a link showing exactly at what level toxicity commences
I can find recommended “safe ” levels(thanks Steve) based on a 50+ year trail but no study showing when F actually damages humans
Cosmetic fluorsis is obviously not toxic in your opinion (and that of most of the pro camp) but there is no clearly defined level where this happens…just a proposed safe level
I guess you could say a single scratch on your car is only cosmetic…but I would suggest it is damaged…..
<i.please supply with a link showing exactly at what level toxicity commences
Don’t be so thick. Any individual’s reaction to any chemical will vary with a variety of parameters, age, weight, etc and type of reaction under observation.
thanks Richard Christie what I had in mind was mg /kg & tests on sufficient sample populations where F intake is varied and mg amount is known exactly…..the diet should preferable be devoid of other halogens (chlorine & bromide in particular Iodine is required for life) as possible to avoid possible synergistic effects
In order understand how one person could so garble things in one comment, as you have done, one only needs to look at the sources you cite……..a little, biased antifluoridationist website, “fluorideinformationaustralia” which is full of the same misinformation as all other little biased antifluoridationist websites, and an antifluoridationist blog, “afamildura” maintained by an antifluoridationist who has very little idea of what he’s talking about.
Instead of simply regurgitating nonsense from these sites, has it ever occurred to you to seek accurate information on water fluoridation, which is readily available to you and everyone else, from reliable, respected, and primary sources?
A “single scratch on my car” is readily, and inexpensively removed if it bothers me. However, it is probably not noticeable except upon close examination, and will not have been caused by a process that makes my entire car more scratch resistant.
As far as your desire for threshold of fluoride toxicity, let’s focus on water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, okay? Regardless of the line you seek for toxicity, fluoridated water falls far below it. The IOM daily upper limit of total fluoride intake from all sources before adverse effects may occur, is 10 mg. Before this level is reached, water toxicity would be your problem, not fluoride. Where your concern for the exact line of chlorine toxicity?
These corrosive hazardous waste pollutants & blah, blah, blah…
(…followed by 22 links….)
Where do people like Diane come from?
On what planet is it considered a good idea to post a screed with 22 links?
That’s insane.
There’s no polite way of putting it.
It’s batshit krazy.
It’s not like she’s the only one out there on the internet doing this, either.
(…shudder…)
Ian, why don’t you design the study you wish to occur in which fluoride intake is “known exactly”. Be sure and take into account those who live in non fluoridated areas but work or school in fluoridated areas, and vice versa. Probably will need them to take water samples from every water fountain, bathroom faucet, and restaurant from which they ingest food and water, and have them analyzed for fluoride content. Probably will need them to take samples of Grandma’s food and water, and/or that from wherever else in the world they may visit for work, pleasure, or other reasons. You’ll also want them to write down the exact fluoride content of each morsel of food they eat at home, and from every drink of beverage they consume, carefully measuring total content divided by exact amount consumed. Probably will require a precise weight scale…….
Or, you can realize, as did Levy in his Iowa study, that is impossible to measure exactly the total fluoride intake from all sources, given the enormous number of uncontrollable variables, and instead be satisfied with the knowledge that total daily fluoride intake from all sources falls far short of established upper limits before adverse effects will occur.
Ok, looking at one of Diane’s “references”, “fluorideinformationaustralia”, which would be far more accurately “fluoridemisinformationaustralia”, it is stated
“It is simply assumed by high school science teachers and supporters of fluoridation that all fluoride compounds dissociate entirely into fluoride ions, and harmless hydration compounds of silicon. Pure fluoride solutions do behave relatively predictably, both over the permissible pH range of municipal water supplies and in the extremely acidic environment of the human stomach. However, fluorosilicates dissociate in highly complex fashion in water, with an amazing range of complex derivatives forming at different pH values, none of whose toxicological properties has been adequately investigated. In other words, we don’t really know much about their effects on our health.”
So, it appears that Dr. William F. Finney is a high school science teacher. His paper in which it is concluded that no HFA intermediates are observable after hydrolysis, must just be a semester term paper or something.
“The dissociation of hexafluorosilicate has been reinvestigated due to recent suggestions that fluorosilicate intermediates may be present in appreciable concentrations in drinking water. 19F NMR spectroscopy has been used to search for intermediates in the hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicate. No intermediates were observable at 10(-5) M concentrations under excess fluoride forcing conditions over the pH range of 3.5-5.”
—–Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7.
Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement.
Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW.
Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, 930 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1055, USA.
And It appears that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) …..must just be “supporters of fluoridation”, because they state:
“Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation. These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance to be evaluated is the fluoride ion (F-).”
—–SCHER
Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water 16 May, 2011
And looking at another of Diane’s “references”, Dr. Richard Sauerheber, whose paper she cites. Well, it appears that Dr. Sauerheber has a really neat tie-in to another of Diane’s sterling “references”, the website with the catchy, and very objective sounding, “fluoride-class-action.com”, which is the website of “Attorney Deal”, the esteemed member of the bar and Connett affiliate, who seemingly spends his time in pursuit of class action attempts against fluoridation. It seems that the purely objective Dr. Sauerheber is the “scientific consultant” for “Attorney Deal”. Unless Dr. Sauerheber very generously volunteers his time working for “Attorney Deal”, it is probably a safe assumption that Dr. Sauerheber is paid by the fluoride opponent attorney who apparently seeks to make money off of lawsuits against water fluoridation.
Small world, isn’t it? All antifluoridationist roads seem to lead back to Connett……..
well Diane the question I have for you is how this nasty acid gets past all the health authority’s worldwide to get in the water. And I bet you are not making any noise about Folic acid in your bread As usual with your type ,very selective. Looking at some of your links ,they site known activists and no real research documents, because there is non that say fluoride is dangerous to humans in the .7PPM range
Steve cosmetic damage is still a cost to the system…that’s the point..dental fluorsis is cosmetic and may be easily fixed as you say but at the end of day it is still damage
There are protocols for testing, designed by smarter people than me, for food additives and drugs not sure how you would classify F. I would certainly be prepared to contribute towards the cost of such independent testing if the correct protocols are in place. The result should clarify either for or against.
Human populations are as you say very difficult to test for the reasons stated especially if we are to look at long term chronic exposure, Acute is much easier (accidents leading to harm(poisoning) or death), therefore in the case of chronic all food, water, possible exposure by absorption through skin, all must be strictly controlled over a long period.
With humans you could only do with with small sample which would be declared invalid for some of the reasons you stated and sample size and the time required for the human trials
That only leaves the tried & tested protocols. Paul & Ken would likely have some ideas on the type of protocols required
The reason for mentioning other halides eg chlorine is they all belong to a group of chemical (periodic table) that react similarly and form mixed halide compound under certain conditions so it would be logical (no papers I could find) from a chemical point of view that the oxidation effects of these on the human body would be similar and therefore could have an addictive effect though Iodide is supposed to protective as far as F and thyroid hormones
(google iodine protective of fluoride if you want more) Also Both F & chlorine are used in pesticides
Hope this clears this issue,
“Or, you can realize, as did Levy in his Iowa study, that is impossible to measure exactly the total fluoride intake from all sources, given the enormous number of uncontrollable variables”
This part of the problem and the reason you have a debate
“and instead be satisfied with the knowledge that total daily fluoride intake from all sources falls far short of established upper limits before adverse effects will occur.”
Ian, evidently I am not making myself clear. Mild dental fluorosis is not “damage”, it is a non-issue that antifluoridationists have tried their utmost to trump up into being a major disorder because they have nothing else. Mild dental fluorosis was not considered by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride to be an adverse effect. It is not considered by many to even be undesirable, due to the fact that mildly fluorosed teeth have been demonstrated by Kumar to be more resistant to decay. You seem not to understand that the costs incurred by individuals and society due to preventable, untreated dental disease are astronomically greater than any related to dental fluorosis. If you are concerned about the cosmetics of barely detectable white spots on teeth then you should be scared to death about the cosmetics of black dental decay.
If you want to attempt to find your line of toxicity, feel free. The margin between what can be ingested on a daily basis and that which will cause adverse effects is more than enough to allay any fears of toxicity related to water fluoridated at 0,7 ppm.
Steven, I assume tooth enamel varies in colour naturally across a population. By naturally, I include other reasons including exposure to other things, take extreme example of tetracycline. Is this not so?
Exactly, Richard. Enamel varies in shade from individual to individual. This can be intrinsic or extrinsic (stain). Interuption in enamel development can occur for various reasons, fluorosis being but one. Trauma to the oral area during tooth development can cause different coloration at the point on the tooth which is in development at the time of the trauma. Same for illness. Systemic illness can cause an interuption in enamel development, as can, as you mentioned, certain medications, and of course fluoride. Far more often than not when people claim they can easily spot dental fluorosis, they are either seeing discolorations of teeth due to factors other than fluoride, or are seeing the effects of exposure to much higher levels of fluoride than are present in fluoridated water, well water for example, or high concentrations of environmental fluoride such as that which may have been emitted into the air by industry. Discolorations due to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm will not be noticeable at normal speaking distances, under normal lighting, and probably not even at distances closer than that unless the person viewing it is specifically looking at the teeth for signs of fluorosis.
Zac, I am not approving your comment and will moderate future comments of yours. It is too antagonistic and off subject. We are attempting to moderate comments in this current debate to prevent the usually hostility, abuse, trolling and copypasta normally experienced on this topic. This is something both I and Paul Connett agreed on as a condition for the exchange. So far I think this has worked well and the discussion has been really good and informative.
Feel free to make comments relevant to the articles and keep out the antagonistic material and I will approve them. We welcome honest discussion with comment made in good faith.
U.S. court decisions have rejected the argument that fluoride is a “medication” that
should not be allowed in water. The American Journal of Public Health summarized one
of these rulings, noting that “fluoride is not a medication, but rather a nutrient found
naturally in some areas but deficient in others.”
Under the guise of being open-minded and science oriented, you present nothing more than the same, stale arguments against fluoridation that have been presented by antifluoridationists since this public health initiative began 68 years ago. The “forced medication” nonsense dates back to the ’40s and ’50s with the John Birch Society leading the way with that. To say that “now it is in dispute whether it is safe or not” demonstrates either a total ignorance of the history of this initiative, or an intentional effort to mislead the public, neither of which belong in an intelligent discussion. This “dispute” has been presented by antifluoridationists since day one of fluoridation. If you want to contribute anything of significance to the issue my suggestion is for you to first properly educate yourself on it from reliable, respected and original sources.
I believed in water fluoridation for more than 30 years. But then I found out it was the #1 trigger for my chronic migraine headaches. Fluoride is NOT right for everyone and no matter what the science says, putting it in the public water is unconscionable. It’s a medicine I can’t take and don’t want.
I grew up in California and started drinking fluoridated water in 1976. Eight years later, I got my first migraine though we have no family history. I tried everything to prevent and treat them: diet changes, exercise, sleep, meditation, yoga, acupuncture, on and on and on. I had headaches a few times a month for the first 20 years. Then about 10 years ago, the headaches progressed to a daily occurrence. I had a painful headache every single day!
Then last December, someone suggested fluoridated water might be causing the headaches. I was such a believer in fluoride’s safety, it took a few months for me to give it a try. But eventually I did.
Within 3 weeks my daily headaches were gone. It’s been 8 months and my entire life is improved; I’m no longer in chronic pain. The only headaches I get now are triggered by predictable causes, like wine. When I control these items, I have no headaches. 30 years of pain gone, just from cutting out fluoridated water. Mystery solved. I can’t tell you what this has meant to my quality of life.
Those who are pro-fluoride argue the benefits for teeth and don’t seem to believe in the negative side effects for the rest of the body. I’ve had my fair share of cavities and tooth decay. But even if I hadn’t, I’d say I should have been given the choice. No one had the right to inflict years of pain upon me. I’m sure the public health officials and voters thought they were helping me. But giving a one-size-fits all medication to every member of society without consideration of their medical history or sensitivity to medication is not fair, ethical or effective.
PS: I’ve been reading the comments on the other pages and anticipate I’ll be challenged shortly esp. about the other additives in water. Before you do, let me say I’ve been testing my theory on fluoride vs. other nasty stuff in water, like chlorine. I have been able to test my theory that it’s the fluoride and nothing else by reintroducing fluoridated toothpaste after taking a break when I was in a headache-free phase. This is how I figure out all the items that trigger headaches; cut them out, then reintroduce and see what happens. In this case, my headaches came back. Same with fluoride treatments from the dentist. Same with fluoride from other sources, like grape juice. Each time I reintroduce, the headaches are back. This is why I believe it’s fluoride and not just the general additives in tap water.
Just wondering why you think Chlorine is nasty when it kills so many bugs that could kill us…salmonella, cryptosporidium…pathogens etc etc? What do you mean by nasty?
Hi there – By nasty, I meant harmful. Should have said that. I understand the job it does killing those things you mention. I’m not arguing against it. I’m saying I’m confident it’s not the chlorine, or other water ingredients, that are giving me headaches.
mmm….just wondering how you measure your total fluoride intake from the air you breathe, foods you eat and liquids you drink?
Or do you estimate quantities this based upon your perception?
…and will you cut these sources out if your headaches become migraines?
Well, Julie, looks like you’ve got it all figured out with your “testing”. You should submit this study to the journal “Fluoride”. They’d probably publish it.
Your sarcasm is not necessary, Stephen. I get that my story is anecdotal and I know that my tests are unscientific. I’m sharing because I’m concerned about the safety of fluoride. I’d like to reiterate that I was extremely skeptical. I did NOT expect that the elimination of all sources of fluoride would help with my headaches. However, I did expect that the other things I tried over the years would work; they didn’t. I would be grateful if you can help me by sharing the names or links to studies that prove there is no negative impact to the rest of the body, esp. the brain, from long term exposure to fluoride? I haven’t been able to find these. Those studies I have found that address other parts of the body support the case of those against fluoride and many say they are inconclusive. So which studies about the body are conclusive and prove not safety for the body?
Christopher, as I’m sure you understand, it’s very difficult to measure the intake of any substance we consume outside of a lab setting. And with the introduction of pesticides containing fluoride, this makes it especially hard. I’ve tried to measure intake, but it’s been very hard without lab equipment. But yes, I definitely cut out sources when I discover they trigger migraines.
well julie there had been fluodated water in the U.S.A for 68 years with 73%of the population taking it. If there was anything that was causing major health issues ,I,m sure the 3200+ research papers would have sited it by now.Just go to any of the major health websites and you will find there full support of fluoride The leading health and medical organizations support water fluoridation. This list includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association, the Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Family Physicians. We can trust their knowledge and expertise.
Julie, demanding proof of a negative is a standard antifluoridationist tactic which, by design, creates an endless process of putting out unsubstantiated claims then demanding proof that they are invalid. This is not valid science. You must first have valid evidence that a problem exists before credibly demanding proof that it does not. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, your anecdotal study notwithstanding.
you say ” I’m saying I’m confident it’s not the chlorine, or other water ingredients, that are giving me headaches”
I’m curious, what gives you this confidence? Why must it be something in the water? What about other environmental influences ….physiological…psychological…nagging kids?!
Steve – I’m demanding proof of a positive. Is it positively safe? Shouldn’t that be a requirement for anything you give to every member of a community, city or country? If you can’t prove its safe, why is it in my water? Just because it’s been in use for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s safe. People have been using aspirin for more than 100 years. People have been eating iron since the dawn of time. Does that mean those items are recommended and safe for everyone? Or that any level consumed is OK? Or that these items won’t damage one part of your body while helping another? Of course not, so why should we say that any level of fluoride is safe for a society of citizens with all sorts of backgrounds, illnesses or sensitivities?
I’m just not clear on the reasons for giving everyone fluoride via water we can’t live without. Why can’t those of you who want it, buy it at the store with your toothpaste, rinse and floss? There are many who shouldn’t consume fluoride, so why give it to all of us?
Hi Christopher – I’m confident because I used the same approach with fluoride as I’ve used with any other thing that I’ve suspected gives me migraines. The approach I take is like allergy testing: I eliminate the item completely, wait until I’m headache free for more than a month, then I reintroduce it without changing anything else, then I wait. When I reintroduced fluoride, I didn’t use tap water, I used toothpaste. Then I tried fluoride supplement pills. Then I tried it with grape-juice, chicken nuggets and other items people have claimed have high amounts of fluoride. I also get headaches from Tylenol, blue cheese, sleep deprivation … fluoride is not the only trigger. So of course I avoid all those things too.
I’ve been testing for 30 years and have it down to a good routine. There are other factors: I didn’t get headaches when I lived in non-fluoridated cities; when I recently moved and used fluoridated toothpaste for 2 weeks, my headaches came back, etc. Also, when I visit non-fluoridated cities, I drink the tap water and I’m fine (I did this for 2 full weeks over the summer).
It’s only been 8 months and I would gladly participate in a controlled study if there was one. Anyone who knows me understands how much I’ve done to find the cause of these migraines. I’ve had MRIs (at the insistence of my worried father), tried medication, changed all sots of things in my life, but nothing got rid of the daily headache. That is until I removed fluoride. I have been very surprised to learn this is the cause. I wish it weren’t; it’s expensive to avoid fluoridated water where I live.
Julie, it is not possible to prove guaranteed safety of ANYTHING. It would make no difference how much proof was provided on the safety of fluoridation. There would always be an endless chain of unsubstantiated claims made with demands for proof that they are not true. This is demanding proof of a negative and is exactly what you are doing, i.e. “There could be a problem here, so prove that there is not”. The fallacy of your argument about fluoride and your headaches is that even in non-fluoridated areas you were still ingesting fluoride in your water, as it exists there naturally, in foods that were grown and/or produced using fluoridated water and in beverages which contain fluoride. That you didn’t have headaches when living in these cities is clear evidence that fluoridated water is not your problem.
Provide valid evidence that a problem exists with fluoridated water and you may have a credible demand for proof that there is not. Otherwise you do not.
Steve, Even if fluoride didn’t cause my headaches, which is does, you still haven’t answered: Why can’t those of you who want it, buy it at the store with your toothpaste, rinse and floss? There are many who shouldn’t consume fluoride, so why give it to all of us?
Julie, your question about buying fluoride at a store raises the issue of social policy. Interventions like water fluoridation, salt fluoridation and iodisation, etc., are social health policies. There will always be people who oppose them but in a society there are always gives and takes. We need to balance freedom of choice against social good. Science can inform this decision of balance but it cannot make the decision for us. Often misrepresentation of science arises because people are using science as a proxy for values issues.
In his last response Paul avoided this issue as he felt my comments on it were a personal attack on hike. However, it is a basic issues which I hope we can return to in later articles.
Julie,
You seem to be confused when you say there are many (people) who shouldn’t consume fluoride.
As fluoride is ever present in our air, water, food and bodies – can please qualify what on earth you mean?
In this world there is no way you cannot get fluoride, it is a natural mineral in everything you consume and it is also produced by volcanic activity ,and added to the air, so the statement “why give it to all of us” is nor relevant, all that we do is adjust the level of fluoride to the optimim level for teeth repair, The decision to fluodate is made for the greater good of the community . there will alway be some people who for personal reasons do not like it , but that is life, Everybody has some community decisions that they question
Julie, you clearly demonstrate my point that fluoride opposition is grounded in personal ideology, not facts or science. In spite of my having provided you with the fact that you were still consuming fluoride when you claim your headaches ceased, you deny the facts and persist with your belief that fluoride is the root of your problem. This would be the case no matter how much proof of safety is provided to you. As long as that proof differs from your ideological objection to fluoridation, you will simply deny it. Ken has already very nicely addressed your question as to why add it to water, so no point in my adding else to that. Steven D. Slott, DDS
Thanks Ken. I do appreciate this debate and what you’re doing here. I really wish the science would answer my questions, but as it does not, you’re right, I’m left to the moral argument of asking to just have it kept it out of my water. I am still searching for answers. I can spend all day trying to prove fluoride causes my migraines. I’ll never satisfy this group; and that’s OK. My methods are not proven but I know a high amount of fluoride is a trigger just like you know what food gives you an upset stomach. Trial and error. Nothing else changed for me other than removing fluoride. 10 years of daily headaches are gone. I don’t expect that to be enough for the scientific community, but it’s enough for me. And I wish it were enough to encourage a second look at fluoridation.
I do worry for others. My motivations are as genuine as your desire to help the community improve their dental health. I say it shouldn’t be in the water because my health is as important as the next person’s. There are other ways to get fluoride than adding it to the water. We don’t have to give it to everyone. We chose to and I’m hoping as a collective we will reconsider.
And Christopher you seem to be confusing naturally occurring fluoride with the man-made versions used in most community water and to manufacture pesticides. I’ve checked the naturally occurring fluoride levels in those cities where I lived and didn’t get headaches, and they were not even close to the amount that is added to fluoridate with chemicals (.02ppm vs. the average of .07-1.3ppm; I started getting fluoride in the 70s when levels were much higher). Only 10% of the US, where I live, gets natural fluoride. Everywhere I’ve lived gets the man-made kind. And just because I can tolerate small amounts of fluoride doesn’t mean higher doses can’t harm me and give me headaches.
As for those who shouldn’t consume fluoride, off the top of my head the short list would be infants, people with kidney disease, people with HIV. These are recommendations from groups like the CDC and National Kidney Foundation.
Steve, Your support of fluoridation is also ideological. It’s not a character flaw. You have your ideology and I have mine.
Yes, I was still consuming smaller amounts of fluoride when my headaches ceased, but not as much. To say that because I can tolerate small amounts means I have no issues with fluoride is an oversimplification. Perhaps you can have 1 or 2 beers and be fine. What happens when you drink 15 or 20? Our bodies can tolerate small doses of many things, but this does not mean that higher doses can’t have a negative impact. Or that what is tolerable for you is also tolerable for me.
I believe we’re overdosing many with fluoride. And nothing I’ve read in the arguments here has convinced me that the benefits outweigh the risk. I do believe water fluoridation is a risky practice and I hope it ceases one day very soon.
I’ll bow out now. Thank you all for the lively discussion.
Julie – there is absolutely no difference between “man made” fluoride and “natural” fluoride. Yes, the concentration could be important – often the natural levels are higher than for optimally fluoridated water. Anyway, your quote of 0.02 seems exceptionally low. In our area the source water is around 0.2-0.3 ppm and peaks about 0.6 ppm.
Everyone gets natural fluoride – even if it is only at 0.02 ppm in the drinking water – but more normally it would be around 0.1 ppm or greater. Then of course you get it in your food, etc.
Be careful when you refer to recommendations. The recommendations for bottle fed infants is always being misquoted by anti-fluoride activists. There is usually no warning of danger, even though intake may approach and sometimes exceed recommended maxima. The usual statement that parents who are concerned about this should occasionally use non-fluoridated water is taken right out of context.
My advice is to look carefully at the specific recommendations before relying on other’s interpretations.
In the end I strongly believe that decisions like this should be made democratically. Unfortunately our local experience has been that activists have been subverting the democratic process – helped by the fact that local body politics seems to attract some weird people here. Even though our referendum decisively showed support for fluoridation we still have to work to try to prevent our local councillors from ignoring the voice of the voters. They are being pressured to do so by the anti-fluoridation activists.
Julie there is no such thing as “man-made” fluoride. Fluoride in water “naturally” is fluoride ions which are released from calcium fluoride. Calcium fluoride is picked up from rocks as water courses over it. The substance used to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rocks as a co-product of the process which also extracts the other co-product phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is utilized in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into the food that we eat. The HFA co-product of this process is diluted to a 23% aqueous solution which is then utilized to fluoridate water systems. When the HFA is added to water, it immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates) into fluoride ions and trace contaminants. The HFA no longer exists in that water after that point. The fluoride ions released by the HFA are identical to those fluoride ions released by the calcium fluoride. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion regardless of its source. The trace contaminants are in such miniscule concentrations that they pose no threat, whatsoever, of adverse effect.
Hopefully, you can understand from this explanation that there us absolutely no difference between fluoride ions which are in water “naturally” and those added with HFA. They are identical. This is just elementary chemistry.
Too, you need to understand that 0.7 ppm fluoride is an extremely miniscule amount. It is not a “high” concentration of fluoride by any stretch of the imagination. The difference between 0.2 ppm and 0.7 ppm in a water supply is not going to cause your headaches or any other adverse effects. Comparing the difference between 1-2 beers and 15-20 beers to the difference between 0.2 ppm and 0.7 ppm fluoride is so ludicrous as to not warrant any further discussion. Understand that ppm means 1part one substance per one million parts of the other.
You just need to reconcile yourself to the fact that although you have convinced yourself that fluoridated water is responsible for your headaches, the facts clearly indicate otherwise.
Julie, there is a large chasm in methodology between your use of confirmatory bias over a suspicion you harbour regarding fluoride and headaches to the more usual home screening of foodstuffs etc for allergenic effect as even recommended by health practitioners.
When a doctor or dietitian suggests removing and reintroducing foodstuffs etc to ascertain effect they are
1. dealing with known potential allergens, not a substance with no proven links to the symptoms claimed (fluoride/headaches)
2. the procedural results of home/dietary allergen screening are regarded as indicative only and are usually then clinically tested with dermatological scratch tests etc.
Of, course, you are entitled to your theory.
Do you have another?
Hi Ken – Your comment came to my email, so I wanted to respond quickly on one point. For one city I lived in for 3 years headache free, my mistake their report shows .03ppm. Here is the report. https://www.calwater.com/docs/ccr/2012/ch-ch-2012.pdf. Yes, this does seem very low.
My comparison of beer was to make the point that we all have different body chemistry and we all tolerate things differently. Why don’t you address that point instead of focusing on the metaphor? I’m not a scientist or doctor; I’ve never claimed to be. And I never claimed the elimination diet I’m following is lab-approved.
As for Christopher’s comment, I’m bowing out because it’s really pointless to allow myself to continue to be attacked by all of you. You’ve been dismissing of everything I have to say. It’s clear you don’t believe my story. You’re putting me into a box with a group of people you obviously dislike. You think I’m flat our wrong or that I’m lying. You have absolutely no willingness to consider that I may be speaking truth despite the line at the top of this page about that mind not working if it’s closed. If you knew my personal integrity and history, you would listen. But you don’t know me, so it’s easier to write me off as a fool.
That’s fine. You support fluoride. I used to as well, I get it. But it’s clear you have no interest in me and my personal victory, and more importantly you don’t care to consider that my victory may be an indicator that your belief may need to be reconsidered and that very thing you support may be hurting the people you want to help. I came here looking for answers, not to be lambasted. I’m bowing out so you can take your cheap, dismissive shots at someone else. Have fun with that.
Julie, you are not here looking for answers. We gave those to you and you refused to accept them because they don’t fit the ideology you seem so desperate for us to believe. You are here to profess your opinions, not obtain answers. It is not our minds which are closed. You are upset because we decline to accept your conclusions, refusing to understand that they are simply not borne out by basic facts. It’s akin to someone declaring that the Earth is square then getting upset with those who refuse to accept that. This is a microcosm of the whole antifluoridationist movement. A small, yet very vocal group who are so set in their ideology that they refuse to see what is clearly in front of them. A complete denial of facts and reality.
Julie, it is a pity you feel we are not appreciating you adequately here. But I do not think you have been “lambasted” or the subject of “cheap. Dismissive shot.” Perhaps you feel that way because your arguments have not been accepted – but that is life.
In my upcoming response to Paul I will refer to this aspect a bit. How science often becomes a substitute for values and politics and the scientific discussion a proxy for an ethics discussion. Personally I think we should try to have that ethics discussion – – but it does require people to stop making scientific claims which have no proper support.
I can assure you I do get lambasted and worse. By moderating this discussion I have excluded people who habitually do this. But the debate is being followed and discussed in several Facebook pages. On some of those I am called a moron, said to be suffering from dementia, and regularly get hateful comments fired at me.
It is refreshing for me to have such a high quality discussion here with good comments from both side of the debate.
Once again professing to know what I’m about. My mind is open enough to reconsider what I believed wholeheartedly for 30 years. I read all the papers in this debate looking for information. I did get some answers, but my mistake was commenting. I see from googling your name Steve that you’re all over the Internet defending fluoride. Strong beliefs? Or should we wonder who you work for? Clearly being very vocal is OK when it’s you and not those whom oppose you.
I’m not in denial about the facts … the fact is when I take fluoride, I buckle over in pain shortly afterwards. I guess after all this back and forth I realize that’s enough for me.
Hi Ken – Since Steve’s first comment was a cynical remark about my story being published in a Fluoride journal when I never claimed to be a scientist … well, that felt very dismissive. I suppose he’s just a poster like me and not affiliated with your site. Your comments have been great, which is why I wanted to respond when I read your last note. I guess I didn’t realize the passions. I really don’t think less of anyone who is on the side of fluoride. I just wanted you all to hear an honest account, a personal experience. Science gives us the data, but this is an issue about people in the end. Best of luck with your debates. I’ll come back and read them … will just resist commenting (something I’m clearly not very good at :-).
Another antifluoridationist habit…..money. Always ironic to me that antifluoridationists constantly allege that fluoridation proponents are being paid, somehow. Why the obsession with that is beyond me, but the only ones I know who are profiting from this issue are Paul Connett, his lobbyist, William Hirzy, and whomever else is paid within the FAN organization. It just seems to be beyond their scope of comprehension that a sense of responsibility to profession and fellow man could be motivation enough without being paid. This speaks volumes about the antifluoridationist mindset.
Actually, Julie, Steve’s comment about publishing in Fluoride was a dig at the journal, not at you. In my next article I provide just such an example – a paper by a non-scientist being simply an anecdotal report such as yours. Not normally the thing accepted by reputable journals – but that is Fluoride for you.
You’ve been dismissing of everything I have to say. It’s clear you don’t believe my story.
How so?
Nobody has denied that you took it upon yourself to test your theory and that you came to a conclusion.
Not a soul has disputed the story,
It’s just that nobody buys into your reasoning and justification for your validation of your theory.
Nobody is being mean to you.
Rather our reactions are because science has a lot of experience at sorting out the validity of evidence. In short, that is what science is all about. Your anecdotal related experiments are scientifically worthless.
Slott is incorrect. All the work I’ve done against fluoridationists and their belief system has been as a volunteer. I already have a job as a college educator. My medical research career spanned many subjects but research exposing industrial fluorides and why they are harmful, illegal, and useless was done on my own time. The article I published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health is available free online at: JEPH 439490.
R Sauerheber
I am fascinated by this discussion yet as another person noted on this blog…
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?
I have to be convinced that all of these authorities have got it wrong. That requires more than endless repetition each side’s favoured literature.
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
So why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong?
Oh, Richard, thank you! I forgot about you! Do you work as “Scientific Consultant” for “Attorney Deal” on a volunteer basis? Deal, for those unaware, has a website called “fluoride-class-action.com” which appears devoted entirely to stirring up class action lawsuits against fluoridation, which, of course, have had no success.
So, Richard, do you care to disclose any financial arrangement you have with Deal? If you are paid by him, or helping him to attempt to profit with lawsuits, how do you then expect credibility to be accorded to your paper which is obviously biased against fluoridation?
Even though you have decided to bow out, I will add a little to some points you have raised – you said you would be still reading.
I will approach this from 2 perspectives;
1) Personal and 2) Public
First, your personal point of view.
As with your headaches, I sympathise. Headaches can be quite debilitating.
I have little doubt that you believe fluoride is the culprit. Really. You appear adamant. Unshakeable. I’m not denigrating this belief. This is yours. But it is a belief and it’s not science.
“Fluoride is NOT right for everyone and no matter what the science says, putting it in the public water is unconscionable.”
This says it all really, no matter the facts, the science, the truth etc, just put your fingers in your ears and shout blah blah blah.
“It’s a medicine….”
No it’s not.
“I can’t take and don’t want.”.
You actually can take it, it’s in already in the water you drink, the air you breathe and the body you live in. I think you need to be honest hear and define quantities and sources – perhaps take a scientific approach.
As for not wanting it, you have made this quite clear. Nevertheless, none of this is particularly relevant when public health issues need to be considered.
The second and by far more relevant perspective involves the public arena.
This blog is concerns a debate on the fluoridation of public drinking water. I find it particularly disturbing that you have taken your personal objection, (however unscientific and inconsistent) to fluoride and transposed it upon the public as a whole.
Because you think its bad for YOU, you think it is bad for everybody else.
As you say, never mind the science. Forget the (scientifically proven) health benefits to millions of other people; poor people, disadvantaged people, infants, children.
Its all about you. If you can claim one less headache then it’s all worthwhile.
Also, never mind the fact that you are educated and have the resources to avoid the locus of your non scientifically and inconsistently perceived belief – you have a RIGHT to it. Sod everyone else.
The comment by JLSS is one that has appeared, verbatim, on other sites in the past, posted under other pseudonyms. The suggestion to rephrase in the commenter’s own words is a good one.
I oppose more because of the lead than the fluoride. Lead levels in tap water can be higher even than fluoride levels, because the fluoride used dissolves lead out of pipes and faucets. All agree that even small amounts of lead are toxic. See: See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.
Usually the homes, apartments, commercial buildings that have the most lead in their pipes and fittings are the oldest ones. They often contain lead-brass pipe and lead-copper solder. Even new homes contain lead in faucets, up to 8%. Expensive copper pipe is often welded together with copper lead solder.
In 2004 it was learned that in old Seattle schools – which had lead pipes and lead-brass water fountain bubblers – the lead level in the tap water was up to 1,600 parts per billion (1.6 ppm), a fantastically high level. That is double the 800 ppb (.8 ppm) level of fluoride allowed now in cities that fluoridate.. http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Elevated-lead-levels-found-in-35-Seattle-schools-1219258.php
When Tacoma temporatily stopped fluoridating because of a water shortage, lead levels in drinking water immediately dropped by a half.
Old homes, where poor people tend to live, contain more lead in pipes and faucets. Fluoridationists say they are trying to help the poor, but fluoridation harms the poor most of all by poisoning them with lead.
Unlike the pharmaceutical grade fluoride used by dentists, the fluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate tape water is not pharmaceutical grade. It is commercial grade and full of filth, including See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.
The amount of lead is high when you add in the lead leached. The amounts of the other contaminants is much smaller. However, to support drinking water fluoridation with fluorosilicic acid, one must assert convincingly that the fluoride, lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and thallium, all working together and potentiating the effect together, are not harmful. Who can make such an assurance. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the amounts of these contaminants causes no harm to those who drink them for life with no control on the amount they consume.
Look at the potential arsenic level for example. NSF’s own documents shows some shipments of fluorosilicic acid, when diluted into drinking water, have produced arsenic levels of up to 1.6 ppb. No one can say that one can drink this much arsenic daily for a lifetime in any amount with absolutely no harm resulting. Arsenic is a type one human carcinogen. Although 1.6 ppb may sound like a small level, remember that atoms are exceedingly small, and so by using Avadro’s method, I calculate that there are up to around 12.8 trillion atoms of arsenic per liter of tap water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm floride ion. That is a lot of atoms floating around looking for cells to poison. There are around 100 trillion cells in the human body, as soon as you drink around eight liters of tap water, there is an arsenic atom for every cell. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/arsenic-and-cancer.
You do not have to be opposed to pharmaceutical grade fluoride used by dentists to be opposed to tap water fluoridation. Pro and anti-fluoridationists agree on one thing: that we are taking in too much fluoride – when you add all sources together. This is why CDC and EPA recommended lowering fluoride concentrations form 1.0 ppm to .7 ppm. They were right to lower it. They just did not lower it enough.
A dentist who believes that fluoride is effective topically, should want drinking water fluoridation to end so that dentists would not have to worry so much about their patients being overdosed when topical treatments of fluoride combined with fluoride from drinking water adds up to too much fluoride.
Fluoridated toothpaste is as big a scam as drinking water fluoridation. All the calcium fluoride which attaches loosely to teeth is swallowed when we drinking orange juice or something else slightly acidic. Fluoridated toothpaste does not significantly remineralize teeth. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridated-toothpaste.
The lead leaching problem only pounds another nail into the fluoridation coffin, which we will soon see being lowered into the grave of monstrous frauds such as tetraethyl lead, DDT, tobacco, and GMO crops. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/speeches/tetraethyl-lead.
Further, it is a sham, certified safe only by a sham agency, NSF. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham. NSF and the suppliers such as Mosaic and Simplot, are involved in a consumer protection act violation or worse by fraudulently certifying their fluorosilicic acid as safe without running the 20 toxicological tests required under the NSF 60 standard. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/illegal
Fluoridation is a faith-based, cult religion by those low level believers. For the chemical corporations that sell it and sit on the NSF board, it is a scam to turn toxic waste into a profit stream.
Sometimes it is hard to find your way out of a religious maze, but the first step is to acknowledge that you have been manipulated, sold a bill of goods, bamboozled, deceived, suckered. You have been the victim of false advertising and a big lie. All these are on a continuum with and should be studied along with mass hypnosis as a technique for manipulating gullible consumers. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridation-as-mass-hypnosis.
Christopher asks: ” Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong? The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fda-taken-over-by-the-industries-it-regulates
Dr. Slott, I hope you will soon come over to our side of this debate. I look forward to your response. Your blog is getting popular.
Note also that Fluoride Action Network operates on a shoestring. Paul Connett is not getting rich doing what he does. See http://www.fluoridealert.org.
James, normally a comment like yours would not get though moderation. The number of links is excessive (even for this blog which has a limit set around 5). All the links are to one web site which you are clearly promoting. And you have lumped together a very large number of arguments which means you are unable to deal with them in any depth.
However, because there are arguments there which can be discussed I will approve the comment this time. Could you please take into account the issues I raised in your future comments.
Oh dear, Mr Deal gives us another long list of PRATTs we have mostly already disposed of.
But here is the money quote
Christopher asks [well actually, I asked] : ” Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong? The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you.
It’s a conspiracy people. No mechanism provided,
Ultimately, at the bottom of all science denying movements you find a reliance on conspiracy.
First, this is not my website, it is that of Dr. Ken Perrott, who has arranged an excellent online debate between himself and Paul Connett.
I understand that your recent presentation, probably of these same arguments, in Clarksburg, West Virginia was completely refuted by a very knowledgeable fluoridation proponent, leading to the tabling of any further discussion of cessation of fluoridation by that city.
It is always interesting to me that that the one thing that draws fluoridation opposition leaders into comment sections is when I expose the hypocrisy of opponents constantly alleging that fluoridation proponents such as I, are somehow being paid by some unknown entity for our activities. It is only when this arises that I make the point that the only ones I know who are profiting from fluoridation activities, are the fluoride opposition leaders themselves. It is of no concern, whatsoever, to me how much or how little you, Paul, Sauerhaber, Hirzy, or any others connected to FAN make from this issue. The point is that I make absolutely zero from it, and I know of no other fluoridation advocates who make one cent for their efforts. As long as opponents keep raising that issue, I will continue to point out this hypocrisy.
It is also always interesting to note that fluoride opponents, including Paul and now you, constantly cite their own websites as “evidence” of support for their claims, instead of citing original sources from their primary sites. This, to me, is solid evidence of the fear you all seem to have of readers accessing accurate information that has not been filtered and edited through your own sites.
So, let’s first dispense with your argument about leaching of lead in association with HFA. Urbansky and Schock put this issue completely to rest.
“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 II 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., Schock, M.R.
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Next, let’s address the common confusion that you, Paul, Hirzy, and other opponents have between “pharmaceutical grade fluoride” and that from HFA. As I’m sure you’re aware, Hirzy’s recent petition to the EPA to cease HFA in favor of “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride” was summarily rejected by the EPA due to the fact that they easily discovered an elementary mathematics error by Hirzy which, when corrected, demonstrated his data to show just the opposite of what he had claimed it did.
According to the CDC. Please pay special attention to the next to last paragraph in this quote:
“Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.
The U.S. Pharmacopeia-National Formulary (USP-NF) presents monographs on tests and acceptance criteria for substances and ingredients by manufacturers for pharmaceuticals. The USP 29 NF–24 monograph on sodium fluoride provides no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. That leaves the manufacturer with the responsibility of quality assurance and reporting. Some potential impurities have no restrictions by the USP including arsenic, some heavy metals regulated by the U.S. EPA, and radionuclides.
The USP does not provide specific protection levels for individual contaminants, but tries to establish a relative maximum exposure level of a group of related contaminants. The USP does not include acceptance criteria for fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate.
Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.
AWWA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride.”
Next, in regard to arsenic contaminants which may be present in fluoridated water at the tap, your anecdotal opinion and “calculations” are irrelevant. The United States Environmental Agency is the regulatory body of the United States charged with and empowered by the U.S. Government to ensure that the public water supplies are safe for consumption by our citizenry. In carrying out this duty, the EPA has set a maximum level of safety for contaminants, called the maximum contaminant level. (MCL). As a further measure of enduring the safety of the public, however, the EPA does not settle for MCL of water contaminants. Instead, it mandates that all water contaminants must meet the stringent certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 certification requires that no contaminant at the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements. If it did not, it would not be allowed by the EPA. Arsenic, the most prevalent contaminant detected in fluoridated water has been detected in only 50% of the fluoridated water samples tested by NSF. Additionally, in order to detect arsenic in ANY samples, it took 10 times the normal manufacturer recommended amount of HFA in those samples. The maximum amount of arsenic detected in those 50% was only 60% of the maximum allowed under Standard 60, which was only 10% of the EPA MCL. The amount of arsenic was so miniscule that it is not even a certainty that the amount detected using 10 times the normal amount of HFA was not that which already existed in the water “naturally”. Any other contaminants detected in fluoridated water were more miniscule than arsenic.
You may certainly argue your personal, anecdotal opinion on the safety level of arsenic against the scientific findings and standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but I don’t much like your chances.
Next, the CDC and the EPA did not recommend “lowering fluoride concentrations from 1.0 ppm to .7 ppm.” In 2011, in recognition of the fact of more fluoride availability from sources outside water now, than were present when the initial optimal level of fluoride was set as a range between 0.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm, the CDC recommended that the optimal level be changed to simply the lower end of that initial range, 0.7 ppm. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the government entity responsible for establishing the optimal level of fluoride, has not yet affirmed that recommendation, but is expected to do so. This is exactly how our regulatory oversight bodies should work. It is not any sort of negative, as opponents seem set on attempting to portray it.
Your unqualified anecdotal opinions on the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste, or the best manner of remineralizing teeth, are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.
Your thinly veiled attempt at intimidation through threat of legal action is both lame and entirely without merit. I highly doubt that either Simplot or NSF legal departments have given your “notice of potential liability” anything more than a passing glance before deeming them of no merit, whatsoever. Fluorosilic acid meets all Standard 60 certification requirements, with your charge of fraud between utterly ridiculous.
“More than 40 states have laws or regulations requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid] to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a concentration of less than ten percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maximum use level. The EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no known health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples from public water systems to be well below these levels.”
——Reeves TG. Current technology on the engineering aspects of water fluoridation. Paper presented at National Fluoridation Summit, September 8, 2000 Sacramento, CA.
The rest of your “religious cult”, conspiracy nonsense is simply the standard fare of fluoridation opponents when all of their arguments have been refuted. None of it warrants further comment.
You answer my question “Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong?
With…
“The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fda-taken-over-by-the-industries-it-regulates”
So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?
Or that chemical companies are so cunning…so so cunning that they pin tails, nay, thousands of tails on scientists and call them weasels.
Here is an editorial from the Portland, Oregonian which speaks to Mr. Deal’s belief that a corporate conspiracy is manipulating world-wide scientific opinion..
Speaking of the many arguments brought against community water fluoridation the Oregonian said:
“To believe such crackpottery is implicitly to believe the following: That state and federal health agencies are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens, aided by the American Dental Association and, we guess, credulous editorial boards like The Oregonian’s. While we don’t consider any of these groups infallible, or even close, it’s far more likely that fluoridation receives so much mainstream support because it does exactly what it’s supposed to. It reduces the incidence of cavities.”
Perhaps I missed some earth shattering new, but the last legal case involving a fluoridation suit was judge in favor of the defendant, the Metro Water District of Southern California. (August 9, 2011)
References:
Filing:
What is the optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth enamel and dentin which reduces dental caries? Unfortunately, dental caries and caries free dentin and enamel have similar concentrations of fluoride. Therefore, no one knows the optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth.
Once the optimal tooth fluoride concentration is determined, then the optimal serum fluoride concentration can be determined. What is the optimal serum fluoride concentration to reduce dental caries. No one knows. CDC recommends <0.02 ppm serum fluoride concentration. Many in research studies have more than that.
And then, after the optimal serum fluoride concentration is determined, the optimal total fluoride exposure of fluoride can be determined. No one knows. And then, we can determine the optimal fluoride concentration from all sources and adjust water fluoride concentration to make up the deficient fluoride intake in the diet.
Too bad public health promoters of fluoride have gotten the process backwards and talk about optimal fluoride in the water without any clue what is needed in the serum to get the right amount in the teeth.
Patently the religiously inclined playing at science.
Futhermore, from his website, Mr Deal is also an anti-vaccination advocate. Although, curiously, he states that he is not opposed to vaccination “in theory”.
Scientists and health administrators recommend a concentration 0.5 – 1.0 mg/l. With a mineral that varies considerably over different environments a precise measure within a range is probably not an issue. It has been established kidneys are perfectly capable of excreting excess levels (short of industrial concentrations of course) in fact a retired scientist, now active in the antiflouridation brigade during his professional days conducted the relevant research. I could look him up and quote the reference but he’s not hard to find. the antis seem oblivious to the fact (or determined to ignore it) that fluoride occurs naturally in the environment in varying concentrations. It was the discovery of that fact that resulted in probably the most cost effective measure ever introduced to public health.
So, Bill, you are saying that because Levy was unable to narrow down the optimal level any better than 0.7 ppm due to the presence of too many confounding factors now, that all of the observational studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation, should be discarded? Given that there have been no proven adverse effects of water fluoridated at the optimal level, we should abandon the initiative because we are not 100% sure whether the optimal level is 0.6, 0.7 or 0.8 ppm?
Dr. Osmunson’s search for the perfect blood/plasma/serum level for fluoride is only important to those who mistakenly believe that the fluoride ion has more in common with cancer chemotherapy than table salt.
With about 68 years of large population application we well know that a precise individual “dose” to create the “right” blood level is not important. There are a great many natural dietary substances for which exact dosing is not important.
No one worries about a precise “dose” for chloride or iodide, fluoride’s halide cousins. We don’t calculate our daily dose of salt, vitamin D, calcium or a bunch of other minerals and vitamins and dietary substances.
Fluoride is the 13th most common elemental material in the earth’s cruse, more common than carbon the basis of all life. Mammals and human’s have had eons of experience with low level fluoride in water. We do just fine with a wide range of intakes. Dr. Osmunson’s concern ignores the reality of all organisms interaction with the natural environment.
What we do know is that 0.7 ppm fluoride prevents cavities. No health effects are associated . .nada, zip, zero.
This is a superficially plausible but misleading and fallacious argument.
Concept A: Proponents seem to talk about the concentration of fluoride in water as though water were the only source of fluoride. Total exposure has changed and must be considered and not evaded. Not everyone’s kidneys function the same and excrete fluoride. Estimates of mean exposure do not take into account kidney function, etc. Therefore, thoughtful scientists would consider blood serum fluoride concentrations a far better scientific measurement than fluoride concentrations in public water. Even fluoride in urine is problematic but better than public water fluoride concentrations. Any research not inclusive of fluoride serum concentrations is problematic and little more than gossip and speculation. Certainly talking only about water fluoride concentration is obfuscation at best.
But we don’t even know what fluoride concentration in the target organ is ideal. We are worse than the dark ages when discussion “optimal fluoride exposure.” Optimal for who, where, what when? Obviously the tooth. So how much fluoride do we want in the tooth? A most fundamental basic question.
Concept B: Perhaps some of you have read the EPA 2010 Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/Fluoridereport.pdf Page 105 Dec 2010 EPA Figure 8-1 The blue lines are fluoride intake. Above the black line (about a quarter of children) are those ingesting too much fluoride.
Let me underscore that concept. According to the EPA, about a quarter of children are ingesting too much fluoride for several years of their lives.
But the problem of excess fluoride exposure as presented by the graph is much worse.
The graph only represents the 90th percentile of the population for fluoride consumption. Any reasonable person would protect everyone or have labels of caution to avoid excess exposure. In other words, the 10% of the public who consume the most fluoride are not even represented in the graph. The most at risk are completely ignored. Are you willing to callously disregard 10% of the population?
And the graph does not include 100% of infants up to 6 months. Most at risk are those on formula made with fluoridated water.
And to add insult to injury, this is based on the PROPOSED new RfD which is a third more fluoride. That’s right. NCR 2006 said standards were not protective, so EPA changes standards to be less protective rather than more protective.
In order for me not to consider fluoridation a crime against humanity, please explain why proponents of fluoridation have no concern for at least a quarter of the children growing up.
Billy Bud. You suggest that no one calculates out their salt or iodine intake. Not true. On most food packages the FDA requires the sodium content to be listed. And many of us are concerned about iodine intake because thyroid functions are low, especially with higher intakes of fluoride. Of course you use the term, “precise dose.” We are scientists and should be able to at least have a range of dose for each tooth.
My point is, no one knows optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth. That is the entire purpose of ingesting fluoride, to increase the fluoride content of the tooth. But if it doesn’t make any difference, i.e. caries and caries free teeth have similar concentrations, then an optimal fluoride concentration of dentin and enamel is dental hyperbole. And until we know what optimal is for the teeth, we don’t know what is optimal for serum nor do we know optimal for total exposure.
And we are talking police powers forcing everyone to ingest more fluoride and we dentists are clueless as to how much we want them to ingest. Our fixation on water fluoride concentration as though everyone fits in the mean intake and exposure of fluoride is beyond ridiculous.
You suggest fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries. That is simply a lie. If fluoridation prevented dental caries, we would not have dental caries in those communities. However, we do. At best you should have a modicum of honesty and use the term “mitigate” rather than “prevent.”
After all, most dentists would be out of business in fluoridated communities if fluoridation did what you suggest.
Fluoridation opponents talk about fluoride intake from all sources as if this some new concept, known only to them and completely overlooked by the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare that fully supports water fluoridation. The CDC and the IOM estimate total fluoride intake from all sources to be 50-75% from water and beverages. Do you dispute this?
The IOM established daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources to be 10 mg before adverse effects will occur, long or short term. With water fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, and 50-75% of the total intake being from water and beverages, before 10 mg intake could be achieved, water toxicity would be the problem, not fluoride.
With kids age 0-8 the daily upper limit is considerably less, but only due to the risk of mild to very mild dental fluorosis during those teeth developing years. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis requires no treatment, has been demonstrated by Kumar to be more decay resistant, and was not considered by the 2006 NRC to be an adverse effect. This is the only consequence of that “quarter of children ” whom the EPA reporting as ingesting “too much fluoride”.
Let me underscore this concept. The only consequence of these kids ingesting “too much fluoride” is the risk of their developing mild to very mild dental fluorosis. You do understand that the black dental decay prevented by fluoridation is far more aesthetically objectionable, and far more detrimental to health than the barely detectable white streaks of mild dental fluorosis, correct?
The same is true for infants. Given the fluoride content of most infant powdered formulas, the use of fluoridated water to reconstitute these powders may result in the development of mild dental fluorosis. If this is objectionable to the parents, in spite of the increased dental decay resistance, the CDC and the ADA suggest they either use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most of which utilize low-fluoride content water.
In regard to your “most fundamental basic question”, again I ask, are you willing to deny an entire population the proven benefit of water fluoridation because you want 100% guarantee of where the optimal level falls between 0.5 ppm and 0.8 ppm? If so, then you’d better look in the mirror if you want to determine who is manifesting a “crime against humanity”.
The 2006 NRC did not loosely state that “standards were not protective”. It specifically stated that the EPA primary MCL of 4.0 ppm should be lowered because it puts children at risk of severe dental fluorosis and is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. The Committee made no recommendation to lower the EPA secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, thus deeming that level to be adequately protective against adverse health effects. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level deemed adequately protective by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride.
Now, why don’t you explain why, given the non-existence of adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, and the countless peer-reviewed observational studies demonstrating the effectiveness of this public initiative within those populations exposed to it, you are willing to doom millions of people to unnecessary pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection of untreated dental disease that could have been prevented by fluoridation.
Well said.
This debate has already caused considerable damage in a number of communities capitalising as it does on the fears of the uninformed. I have noticed in my supermarket a diligent search is required to find fluoridated toothpaste (I am dependant on rain water). I hear many manufacturers in the US have noticed a consumer resistance to fluoride and responded accordingly.
This is what pedantic busybodies with personality disorders are capable of.
Very good article. Makes a good point about conspiracy theories. A successful CT can never be discovered let alone proven. Therefore the absence of proof is evidence of a successful conspiracy. I think this argument was used at Salem. It’s called the fallacy of affirming the consequence. It features regularly in so-called “kangaroo courts” ie “trials” organised by people with no respect for truth or a level playing field. These people thrive on the Internet for the simple reason it is easy to be selective and even misreport with some degree of immunity. There’s a good chance you will tap into fears that close all but the strongest and determined minds.
“You suggest fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries. That is simply a lie. If fluoridation prevented dental caries, we would not have dental caries in those communities”
Not to displace Billy Budd’s right of reply, I will add my opinion.
You called Billy Budd a liar because he suggested 0.7mm prevents dental caries.
It does.
You have taken his suggestion and “pretended” it to mean ALL dental caries, in ALL people.
Not only is that stupid, it is ignores all of the useful information given and cited on this blog.
A Year 10/10thgrade child would not make this error.
Yet you, a person who purports to have both graduate and post graduate degrees as well as perhaps experience as a dentist have done just this. You haven’t really made an error have you? You created a straw man and called it a liar.
Christopher,
Significant name calling is taking place here instead of looking at the science. Using the correct terms would seem to be scientific and save some confusion.
Are you suggesting proponents of fluoridation are about the 10th grade level? I think not, but certainly proponents could be scientific in their marketing.
Bill Osmunson’s comment prompts me to raise some housekeeping issues related to moderation.
1: There will be some inevitable name calling and anger – it is an emotional issue. I am trying to discourage this but will only hold a comment back if it is very bad or it does not contain anything relevant to the issues being discussed. (Technically Bill Osmunson’s, your comment is like that). Also, I will hold comments back which are personal attacks.
2: Leave the moderation to me – continual bitching because you feel the “other side” is overstepping some line is not going to help.
3: There are people who are attempting to divert the discussion with personal vendettas and claims. I won’t let their comments through. But one of these, Paul Melters. Has provided a place where he is gathering comments from similarly mixed people to establish a case against me! If that sort of scandal attracts you have a look at his website http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/.
4: No, please don’t then come back and attempt to discuss or promote Melters’s website and charges here – that would be a diversion. You could attempt to to discuss it on his web pages (good luck with that – he doesn’t provide for any discussion – a bit ironic).
5: The best way of preventing sabotage of the discussion is simply to continue the discussion of the science and/or ethics and other points raised in the articles. Ignore the provocations.
Dear Steve,
Thank you for spending the time to review my comments. I think if we had the time to sit down and make sure our terms and concepts were fully understood, we would be at least in the same book if not on the same page. Your patience is appreciated.
To your first paragraph, I appreciate your acknowledging in essence that total exposure is a fact which needs to be kept in mind. If a country or community uses significant fluoridated toothpaste, fluoride pesticides, fluoride containing coal or other significant source of fluoride and another does not, then comparing only about half the total fluoride exposure could significantly affect a study or certainly an individual within the study. Until the age of 12 my daughter unconsciously swallowed fluoride toothpaste before she spit.
Before I go through some of your items, may I raise some concerns I have with fluoridation research. Please remember, my public health profession uses police powers to fluoridate based on my dental professions absolute confidence the benefits far outweigh the risk and the research is overwhelmingly supportive of fluoridation.
However, when I read the literature, these are some of the areas which the research fails to address:
• A. Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors
• B. Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
• C. Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
• D. Inadequate size
• E. Difficulty in diagnosing decay
• F. Delay in tooth eruption not controlled
• G. Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year around vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.
• H. Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
• I. Oral hygiene not determined
• J. Not evaluating Life time benefit
• K. Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
• L. Dental treatment expenses not considered
• M. Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
• N. Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.
• O. Genetics not considered
Each of the above in and of itself is grounds for concern to remove freedom of choice from patients and use a substance which has never been approved by the FDA CDER, or to my knowledge any drug regulatory agency world wide for ingestion for the prevention or mitigation of dental caries.
I understand the lack of research is not proof of harm, nor safety. However, using police powers which the courts agree can be used for highly contagious diseases, when the research is so flawed, gives me more than a little concern. Proponents need more evidence than “tradition” and “trust me” evidence.
You use IOM data for intake safety. However, when I last reviewed their evidence, it was incomplete and historical. Certainly the 2010 EPA data and NRC 2006 is more current.
You suggest those ingesting more than RfD to only be at risk of dental fluorosis. Are you suggesting there is no upper limit? And what about infants receiving about 250 times the dosage of fluoride as mother’s milk? Would you consider mother’s milk flawed?
And the theory that fluoride is beneficial for the teeth has many holes, such as complete cusp fracture with harder teeth. I know. The lack of research is not proof of harm. But we have been fluoridating for over 60 years and isn’t it about time we are honest and did research on tooth fractures. Limeback et al showed increased fracture with increased fluoride in teeth and the minimal research indicates about triple the prevalence of complete cusp fracture in fluoridated communities.
I would suggest the lack of good published research on improved dental health in fluoridated communities for the entire population as measured by a reduction in dental expenses or dental procedures is alarming. Huge claims are made for dental caries reduction and costs for treatment should also be less. The suggestion that fluoridation has a proven benefit is rejected. Too many studies fail to show a significant reduction in dental caries and fail to consider numerous confounding concerns. The benefits of fluoridation are highly over rated.
You probably remember the FDA CDER in 1975 rejected NDA’s for ingested fluoride based on the fact that the evidence of efficacy for ingested fluoride was lacking. You can bet your socks that proponents of fluoride supplements and fluoridation would get FDA CDER approval if the evidence actually showed efficacy.
You ask a question of me which is valid. Why would I put most of the world at risk, in your words, “doom” them to a life of pain and suffering because I’m opposed to fluoridation. Here are some very short points.
1. Brains are more important than teeth. I can fix teeth. Assuming fluoride reduces caries and does not increase fractures. But lacking studies we can only speculate with poor research.
2. Most developed countries have not fluoridated and their caries rates are similar to those countries predominantly fluoridating.
3. Dental caries had dropped in half prior to fluoridation and the trend in the USA continued with no significant change regardless of fluoridation.
4. The NRC 2006 called for additional research which has mostly not been done. Confidence level in fluoridation is poor at best.
5. Dental expenses for the population in fluoridated communities is not lower unless estimates based on assumptions are done or small groups of people are selected during short periods of their lives.
6. Comparing counties, or states, or countries does not find a benefit between the fluoridated and none fluoridated. (Mixed results, noting consistent.)
7. Mother’s milk is the normative model against which all other infant nutrition should be compared.
So have a happy Thanksgiving, being thankful for the freedom of choice we have in most of Oregon, Europe and the world to drink water which has not been intentionally medicated.
The opposite is true that with fluoridated water you can become edentulous. As stated in these articles: Kentucky would have been a very good place to set up camp and watch for the long-awaited dental miracle to happen, because Kentucky was 100% “optimally fluoridated” in 1992, and remained over 96% “optimally fluoridated” in 2000, in spite of eight more years of patient but meaningless miracle-waiting.
Despite this grand level of fluoridation, in a 2002 article in the Cincinnati Enquirer it was noted that, “In Kentucky, nearly half of the commonwealth’s 2- to 4-year-olds have cavities.” This is approximately twice the national average.
In 2003 the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gave Kentucky a “Fifty Year Award,” which is an award given to states in recognition of their community water fluoridation. In 2002, however, in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC named Kentucky as the top state in the U.S. in which residents had lost all of their teeth. According to the CDC report, 42% of Kentucky’s adults are completely edentulous.
Given the steady flow of fluoride coursing through Kentucky and its residents and given the over half-century-old promise of dental benefits, one might have realistically expected a very different dental score for this state that has complied so thoroughly with the demands and pressures to become “optimally fluoridated.”
The little-known truth, however, is that this edentulous outcome and problematic score is exactly what might be expected from a highly fluoridated population.
Fluoride is known to precipitate and exacerbate periodontal disease, because it stimulates the body’s production of prostaglandins.
Bill, obviously we will just have to agree to disagree. Your points are appreciated, but not new. Basically it boils down to the fact that you consider fluoride at the optimal level to be medication, and interference with freedom of choice. I don’t and neither do the courts each time that has been brought in by fluoridation opponents. It is simply a mineral identical to that which already exists in water which humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time.
You deem more studies to be necessary, including RCTs. I certainly don’t disagree with that, as scientific study should never cease. Our difference is that you believe fluoridation should cease until these studies are done. I don’t. There is sufficient evidence of benefit to continue, with insufficient evidence to warrant cessation while further study is done. Ceasing until all expressed concerns are satisfied means permanent cessation, because all concerns will never be satisfied regardless the amount, or quality of testing that is done. As I know you know, RCTs in regard to fluoridation are all but impossible. Limeback has an idea for one in remote Alaskan villages in which halo and other effects would be non-existent and fluoride intake could be accurately measured. I’m all all for that, and would be glad to be involved in such a study. Perform RCTs for effectiveness, IQ effects, and any other areas of concern. But, in the meantime, there is not sufficient reason for cessation of an initiative that simply adds a miniscule few more parts per million of fluoride ions to those systems which have an existing level below 0.7 ppm.
The problem is getting the funding and personnel for these studies.
Trevor – Rubbish.
Mary Sparowdancer is a crank (like you). Gum disease (forget the pseudoscientific posturing) is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present.
“Freedom of choice” that’s what it’s really about isn’t it. Freedom of choice is good but absolute freedom of choice is chaos and what choice is there when scare tactics are used by cranks and children are denied the benefits from infancy and apathy is rampant and even encouraged among certain demographics.
Read this. http://www.rph.org.nz/content/08376712-fc6f-4ad2-ba10-4b077c690667.cmr
These are studies based on populations quite similar in locality and demographic profiles. The conclusions are quite clear. The city of Hamilton (NZ) is about to reverse a misguided decision to abandon fluoridation. The original decision was the result of surreptitious lobbying by anti cranks who even threatened legal action against individual councillors aided and assisted by a widespread ignorance of science among many and apathy by the wider public. It looks like closer attention by the wider public has galvanised a reaction. Plenty of New Zealanders have first hand experience of an older generations toothless grins and the efficacy of public health measures like fluoridation. The claim of widespread abandoning of fluoride around the planet is a myth. More than that it is an outright lie. Many European communities have relatively homogenous well educated societies. In spite of that many of them deliver fluoride in one form or another. Many of us are used to hearing downright lies dressed up in pseudoscientific pedantry. I have all of my own teeth (68yrs) with some ancient fillings but my older sisters all have dentures. My children and grandchildren (fluoride generations) have barely a filling between them.
If you doubt my claims about Mary Sparrowdancer, cosmic mystic extraordinaire, then read this. You will notice she claims the Feds are “poisoning” 70% of the US population!
Doesn’t sound like widespread abandonment (a frequent lie) to me.
Looks like legal manoeuvring has resulted in the Hamilton City Council, NZ, deferring a decision to reintroduce fluoridation. There will be a lot of angry citizens as the referendum clearly supported fluoridation. The deferral is probably to await the High court ruling early next year on the South Taranaki situation.
Ken.
I’m not surprised. They threatened legal action and I’m pretty sure they obtained privileged access to address councillors in Dunedin. I believe mention was made of litigation. Councillors will kick for touch. These bullies have to be stood up to.
You said;
“Significant name calling is taking place here instead of looking at the science”
Ironic when you incorrectly called Billy Budd a liar.
“Using the correct terms would seem to be scientific and save some confusion”
Accuracy is important, absolutely.
So, again… you stated that Billy Budd suggested;
“fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries”
You have ADDED one word by suggesting that he said “fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents ALL dental caries”
Do you dispute this?
Taking phrases is out of context and ADDING your own meaning is neither scientific nor accurate. Given your accusation of lying, it is also dishonest.
“Are you suggesting proponents of fluoridation are about the 10th grade level?”
No. You either haven’t read my comment or you are AGAIN adding your own meaning here.
“I think not, but certainly proponents could be scientific in their marketing.”
I think that you need to scrutinize your motives and perhaps question why you are adding/changing others comments.
I find your discussion with Steve Slott quite civil and polite – also well considered, which is why I am surprised at your approach towards this issue.
Legal threats by antifluoridationists are common and meritless. Just as with Attorney Deal’s lame attempt at intimidation in one of these comment sections, their total lack of knowledge of of fluoridation substances, NSF standards and legalities of water additives makes for a lot of bluster about lawsuits that are nothing but a bunch of illiterate hot air. Unfortunately, some in leadership are unduly intimidated by this nonsense and succumb to these blatant intimidation tactics. Nothing to be done except try to keep educating leaders with the facts of water fluoridation such that they can eventually discern fact from fiction.
We have a situation in New Zealand where central government and health authorities support fluoridation. Our Health Minister has publicly warned about minority activists decending on a city, picking off councils, and spreading misinformation. The other day our Parlimanetary health committee recommnded that resposnsibility be taken away from councils and managed centrally or by local health boards.
However, the government currently argues that they will not take decisions away from the community. This means that local councils who have been softened up and can be scared by costs of legal action can be manipualted this way – despite a clear referendum reuslt.
It seems to me that if the government wants to keep the decision at the local level it should pass legilation to indemnify local councils. One can’t run a social health poilicy if it can be so easily subverted by threats of legal action so that councils end up ignoring the decisions of the voters.
While the particular High Court decsion this particular council deferrment relies on may be available early next year these activists to keep the issue running for years by using appeals.
And it this tactic proves successful perhaps they could try similar action of vaccinations – another one of their hobby horses (together with chemtrails).
Here is an example of the unconscionable action taken by antifluoridationist attorneys and the extent to which they will go to advance their ideology. The below letter was sent to the National Kidney Foundation to intimidate that foundation into removing its name from the official list of fluoridation supporters. As can be seen, the attorney threatens the then current and past Board members as well as the employees of this non-profit charitable organization. Rather than waste its resources on legal fees in a protracted legal battle, and put its Directors and employees at risk for extensive legal fees they would have probably have had to bear personally, regardless the outcome, the NKF very understandably succumbed to this threatening action and removed its name from the official list of supporters.
In a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert Reeves writes to John Davis, and Charles B. Fruit, CEO and Chairman, respectively, of the National Kidney Foundation:
“Dear Sirs:
This letter is to make you aware of a window of opportunity for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) to act on behalf of its constituents in accordance with the organization’s stated mission. Your actions or inaction in response to this letter have the potential to help or harm many patients with kidney disease and responsible individuals, which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal actions now in development.
I have been asked if I would consider representing kidney patients in actions against your organization as a result of NKF’s misrepresentations concerning fluoride. I have not yet made a decision as to whether I would personally handle kidney cases or refer them to other attorneys. Frankly, I would hope NKF acts forthrightly and responsibly simply out of concern for its constituents’ health. But if you require additional perspective, experience has demonstrated that potentially responsible parties that take action quickly to remedy cases of negligent misrepresentation and who thereby demonstrate good faith can substantially reduce their financial and legal exposure. Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important and urgent matter.”
They’ll have a hard time establishing it is mass medication. It isn’t and has been consistently ruled so in many courts. Properly mixed in an aqueous solution it is a negatively charged ion which is why it is incorporated in teeth enamel and bone. Medications are complex compounds administered to particular patients to address particular pathologies. Fluoridation is simply a thoroughly researched optimisation of a naturally occurring element which has beneficial outcomes without discrimination. There are many decisions that have to be made on behalf of communities, that’s why we have elected decision making bodies in the first place. There are many conclusions regarding welfare and least harm that are made by educated people under approriate guidelines and implemented by suitably authorised bodies. This usually represents our best considered judgements and must have precedence over misguided uninformed opinion if the general welfare is at stake.
Stuart you said: Mary Sparowdancer is a crank (like you). Gum disease (forget the pseudoscientific posturing) is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present. You are the crank not me, secondly In 1936 Dean H.T. D.D.S- wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “From observations that I made in areas of relatively high fluoride concentration (more than 4 parts per million of fluorine) there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is an apparent tendency toward a higher incidence of gingivitis (periodontal disease).
Similar observations of the link between fluoride and periodontal disease have been made many times since by Dean & Arnold, 1943[9]; Day, 1940[10]; Spira L. 1953[11]; Ramseyer et al, 1957[12]; Grimbergen et al, 1974[13]; Poulsen & Moller,1974[14]; Waldbott et al, 1978[15]; Olsson, 1979[16]; Reddy et al, 1985[17]; Wei et al, 1986[18] and Yiamouyiannis, 1993[19].
Stuart: With 1.6 to 4ppm fluoride in the water, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage.” JADA 1944
Here is more information regarding this study from JADA 1944:
Dean Murphy DDS. 2008. The Devil’s Poison – How fluoride is killing you. pp. 62 and 62. Trafford Publishing
This change in chemical structure can cause problems in later dental work as was reported in 1940 by two dentists ‘The Smiths’ from Arizona:
At that time St David in Arizona had a fluoride content in drinking water of 1.6 to 4 ppm. They observed that:
“Steps taken to repair the cavities in many cases were unsuccessful, the tooth breaking away when attempts were made to anchor the fillings, so that extraction was the only course. That decay was widespread and repair highly unsuccessful among young adults was shown by an incidence of more than 50 percent of false teeth in the age group 24 to 26 years. Very rarely, adults were found whose teeth, though mottled, were free from caries.”
G.L. Waldbott et al. 1978. Fluoridation: the great dilemma, chapter 12, pp. 175-177. Coronado Press, Inc. Lawrence, Kansas.
Given the fact that now in the US fluoridation can occur up to 4 ppm, this result is a triumph of modern dentistry. Imagine at 24 to 26 years of age more than 50% of young adults without any decay due to fluoridation (and without teeth). Your anecdotal evidence that you have your teeth is meaningless. I know tons of people in non fluoridated areas with all their teeth with no cavities whatsoever
Trevor, referencing in this way occurs because you are copy and pasting. However, that is disrespectful to others here. Could you please provide proper reference details (and preferably links) in future.
You know Ken I don’t know why you don’t ask for references from the other commenters here, why don’t you ask Stuart for his references on Gum disease being caused only by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present. is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present.
Trevor, I am trying to encourage everyone to provide details – otherwise references are meaningless. The normal process is for people to check what is claimed.
This is to try and maintain a good level for the discussion – throwing references around for the sake of it proves nothing.
If you are trying to make a point and use defences to support it then it is your interest that is done properly.
You say you are trying to encourage everyone to provide details but it seems to me that you only ask me for references all the time when I provide you with all the stuff I have. You don’t seem to bother the people who are pro fluoride for their references this is what I have a problem with Ken.
you said,…” secondly In 1936 Dean H.T. D.D.S- wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association”
You are relying on something written pre WW2?
Seriously? Are you an idiot?
But to avoid any accusations of ad hominem attacks…this is a serious question, not a claim.
It appears that you accept the opinions expressed by ( mainstream) Public health organisations.
What about Public health authorities in the 21st century?
Christopher, I was making a point to Stuart that fluoride is known to precipitate and exacerbate periodontal disease, because it stimulates the body’s production of prostaglandins. I also stated Similar observations of the link between fluoride and periodontal disease have been made many times since by Dean & Arnold, 1943[9]; Day, 1940[10]; Spira L. 1953[11]; Ramseyer et al, 1957[12]; Grimbergen et al, 1974[13]; Poulsen & Moller,1974[14]; Waldbott et al, 1978[15]; Olsson, 1979[16]; Reddy et al, 1985[17]; Wei et al, 1986[18] and Yiamouyiannis, 1993[19]. So no I am not an idiot. Just because a study is old does not make it wrong.
Trevor, I am not asking you for references at all – just that out of respect for your discussion partners you provide reference details. How the hell can anybody check your claims without that?
Or are you afraid to provide details? Do you not have them? Are you just copy and pasting without checking?
I agree Ken that people have to be able to check claims being made about things. I am not afraid to provide details about what I say. I feel I proved my point that fluoride exacerbates periodontal disease and gingivitis and that without fluoridated water we would still have our teeth . I gave the quote “With 1.6 to 4ppm fluoride in the water, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage.” JADA 1944 and provided more details about this study. I also gave information from the book where it is found. I feel people here can check the sources and books I referenced as well. I am not copy and pasting without checking things. I don’t appreciate also people saying rude things to me such as Stuart calling me a crank and Christopher asking if I am an idiot this does not contribute to this discussion whatsoever.
Trevor, if you took the trouble to read Independant assessments of these claims you would find they are shot full of question begging issues. I suggest you look up “confirmation bias” on Google Scholar or SEP. Many casual commentators particularly in the US have never been outside their home county. Just talk to your parents, grandparents and great grandparents and see what they say. Oh! And stop watching that crap on Fox.
Furthermore Trevor, on most issues you will find renegades preaching to captive audiences who have all sorts of suspect motivations. You obviously source literature that confirms your convictions. That’s called “confirmation bias”.
Trevor this just shows you are completely ignorant on oral health. Brushing your teeth stimulates the blood vessels in your gums without which your gums will shrink producing gaps between gums and teeth in which bacteria and corrosive acids work on the enamel. If you are deficient in fluoride exposure this process of general deterioration will accelerate. For God’s sake man we are tought this in school dental clinics on NZ (while we had them anyway). Of course in some countries (and counties) that smacks of socialism and there I suspect lies the problem.
I gave you a direct link to a NZ report and that has references to original research and meta analysis. That is a published survey of already published peer reviewed papers ie it has been scrutinised independently (and secretly) by acknowledged experts in the field.
A common tactic by suspect naysayers is to quote sources that are difficult if not impossible to verify.
Just for fun why don’t you start reading publications that endorse the mainstream consensus, publications that are well respected by the scientific community. Seeking out idiosyncratic claims says something about you Trevor. It suggests you are attracted to the improbable. I don’t say this lightly and I’m not recklessly being ad hominen. while you are at it Google the psychology of the irrational. These psychological tendencies are not isolated to single causes or issues. It’s a personality issue. You will find a cluster if irrational and improbable believes. Typically the very same people are into Chem trails, alien abductions, UFOs, The New World Order, The Ulluminati and black helicopters. I’m not suggesting you are I am just saying if you google some if the names you are probably familiar with you will undoubtedly find that is the case. Just Google Mary Sparrowdancer and read a number of her preposterous claims. She is not an isolated case by any means.
Trevor – you talk of prostaglandins as if they were some sort of fearful invasive agent. They are (generally) vasodilators and possibly aid blood circulation in the gums (which would be good) though don’t quote me as I am neither a pharmacologist or a physiologist, but without them you would not be capable of penile erections. Be grateful man!
Trevor – the sources you quote (as far as I have ascertained) are committed, not to the truth but to getting rid of fluoride no matter how. Google John Yiamouyiannis for example and in rationalwiki and other posts you will find a man who denied the link between HIV and Aids. That makes him at least a crank if not certifiable. This was the man who spurned conventional treatment for his colorectal cancer and went off instead to Mexico and unscrupulous cranks who helped him secumb to his disease with Laetrile and vitamins. Hardly makes him worthy of the sanctification he enjoys in some circles.
I don’t seek to be deliberately hurtful but in defence of the many thousands of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who would be condemned to a lifetime of pain, expense and some ugliness not to mention systemic illhealth without public health interventions such as fluoridation I will say the following. In a different discussion forum (the imagined bizarre effects of wind farms) I stated the following.
“I check the background of proponents of the improbable and frequently find a pattern. These are frequently people with “issues” as they say in the trade. “Issues” that often go back to youth or childhood that have never been expressed and looked at (with qualified help). At some deep level pain or unhappiness is experienced and the poor sod seeks an acceptable explanation.” outside themselves of course. There are explanations of course and they are very often of a sexual nature which manifests itself in horror at “contamination”, contamination being of course an acceptable proxy for violation to the damaged person.
You can read more about it here:… (Trevor sadly links to a no-name blog that he found on the internet.)
No Trevor. Bad Trevor.
You’re not helping yourself when you do that.
Just because you got sucked in by a blog that tells you something that you want to hear doesn’t mean the rest of us have to go play “follow the leader”.
Stop parroting. Don’t just endlessly cut-and-paste.
….made many times since by Dean & Arnold, 1943[9]; Day, 1940[10]; Spira L. 1953[11]; Ramseyer et al, 1957[12]; Grimbergen et al, 1974[13]; Poulsen & Moller,1974[14]; Waldbott….
No.
Those are not your references. You just gullibly cut-and-pasted them from the blog you found. You have not actually read anything independently by yourself.
I agree Ken that people have to be able to check claims being made about things.
Practice what you preach.
So far what you have done is deeply unimpressive.
You haven’t checked anything at all.
It’s all “Oh yeah, a blog. I’ll go off and cut-and-paste it. That will show ’em. It’s got those funny citation thingies at the bottom too. Yeah. Betta cut-and-paste that too. Make look more sciency.”
I am not afraid to provide details about what I say. I feel I proved my point that fluoride exacerbates perio….
You couldn’t provide details if your life depended on it.
You’ve done bugger all in checking the source of the claims that you pinched.
Google John Yiamouyiannis for example and in rationalwiki and other posts you will find a man who denied the link between HIV and Aids. That makes him at least a crank if not certifiable.
Yep.
See, Trevor? Google is not your friend. I’d bet dollars to donuts that it never occured to you to actually google any of those authors. There was never a moment of caution from you that maybe you should vet your sources…. and straight off the bat, Stuart nails it by exposing a HIV denier.
This is a Kook that you cut-and-pasted.
You.
Nobody held a gun to your head.
You stepped in it all by yourself.
As Ken said…I certainly cannot check your sources (your provide no information on them) or the books you reference (you don’t provide any information).
I never do that. When I quote someone, I always cheerfully give the link. I don’t ever pretend to have read a paper. Nor do I just cut-and-paste some isolated quote from some paper that was culled by some other person from some no-name blog. Never. My standards of scholarship are way higher than that.
So no I am not an idiot. Just because a study is old does not make it wrong.
We’re not talking about the bible, you idiot.
We’re talking about science. Scientific research.
It’s not supposed to be a nostalgic trip down memory lane looking for ancient wisdom in musty tomes.
Old stuff gets routinely chucked in science. Why would you limit yourself to a study from before World War 2? That’s just more than a little bit precious.
The world of science has moved on since then. There’s lots of cool (..gasp!….) MODERN stuff out there. The year is 2013.
Embrace it.
You said;
“I don’t appreciate also people saying rude things to me such as Stuart calling me a crank and Christopher asking if I am an idiot this does not contribute to this discussion whatsoever”
id•i•ot
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
For the sake of accuracy I was asking whether you thought you fell into the first category rather than the second.
You have been foolish and stupid as explained in detail by Ken, Cedric and Stuart. I won’t dwell on this.
However it was silly of me to ask whether you believed you were an idiot; most people would answer in the negative regardless of overwhelming supporting empirical evidence.
I didn’t intend on being rude however, and if you have taken offense, I apologise.
I wasn’t making a comment about you as a person – I haven’t any idea on how much of an idiot (or not) you are in real life. I based my question simply on what you had written (or copy/pasted) as I found it difficult that any sane, normal person could actually spend time and effort to stitch together such utter nonsense.
Poor old Trev!
I know we have been giving you a hard time. Didnt mean to ruin your day. Don’t know how old you are but anyone can change their approach to things. Now I’m sounding patronising. But take this on board. Most of us don’t process data rationally all the time. Most of us have had to learn a lot regarding faith versus reason and the various kinds of reason(ing). It’s blimin hard work. Comments directed at you might seem harsh but you need to learn that if you feel tempted to preach to people who have dedicated the bulk of their adult lives in the pursuit of scientific knowledge (justified true belief) with facile arguments, you are going to get hammered. Particularly from australasians who are (in)famous in academic circles for being “mad dog” realists. We also indulge ourselves in a quaint practice called cricket which lionizes sledging, the art of putting people off their game by questioning their paternity among other things.
Cricket teaches us many things one of which is the insight that the world is divided into seasons, series, matches, innings, overs and balls. Any of these can be a triumph. Any can be catastrophic. The point being everyone can turn to a fresh page in life and try a new approach. I suggest you find a couple of good introductory books on scientific method and reasoning. Michael Shermer springs to mind. You’ll find him in a local bookshop or library.
I recall if I’m not mistaken you were bewildered by the fact that you have lost a good number of your teeth despite living in a fluoridated community. Can I ask are you or we’re you a consumer of nicotine or cannabis.
If so you need to reflect on the straight forward fact that unlike prostaglandins (vasodilators), nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. This WILL result in gum disease and teeth loss. Here is the really bad news. 54% of leg amputations in later life are attributed to lifelong smoking. Likewise cardiovascular disease and of course lung cancer. There’s a big price to pay in persistently backing the wrong horse.
As I said I don’t know your age but I gave up smoking aged 31-32 and within three or four months was running 8 miles a day (in my lunch hour), enjoying tramping (hiking) and mountaineering with renewed vigour and contemplating further university study. This had hugely beneficial effects on myself and my family. I developed a healthy respect for myself and realised there is always a path out of the slough of despond and onto a more rewarding upland.
It was many posts back, but I did not hear you use the word “mitigate.” As scientists, when something is prevented, it does not happen. If we prevent pregnancy, polio, or some other disease, it does not happen. If we mitigate the disease, then it is reduced in severity. Fluoride can both decrease and increase dental caries. At best it might mitigate, but it does not prevent dental caries.
My point is the correct term should be used if we are going to be scientists.
Ken,
You have come down hard on those finding serious flaws with fluoridation. However, when name calling and patronizing and attacking the messenger instead of the message is done by proponents, you join in. If you are going to be fair, then be fair on both sides.
Bill, I rather think you were being deliberately provocative and confrontational by using the pejorative term “lie”.
And now you are being being pedantic.
Speaking for no one but myself, I will nevertheless concede you the “point” as I believe that was really what you set out to score with the original comment.
The FD&C Act charges the FDA CDER with evaluating the scientific evidence on whether a substance is a drug or food, mineral, nutrient, etc. and NOT the courts. The FDA CDER has jurisdiction. And the FDA CDER has rejected the ingestion of fluoride because the research does not show it is effective. The FDA CDER has policies, pharmacists, epidemiologists, toxicologists, etc who read the literature and make difficult judgment decisions. The FDA CDER has agreed fluoride is a drug when used with the intent to prevent or mitigate disease.
Evading the authorized regulatory agencies is not proof of efficacy or safety.
Bill Osmunson – we both have “irons in the fire” in this discussion – my position is clear.
As the blog owner I am moderating the current discussion (and this has been so successful I intend to continue moderating other discussions here). I know those here who are stongly motivated in the opposite direct to me will inevitably complain about that moderation. And I am sure I will get similar complaints from local facebook pages (when they clam down and move on from calling me mad, a moron, demented, etc.)
I think I have been clear in my approach:
1: My main concnern is that the discussion not be sabotaged or derailed in the way internet discussions very often are. Consequently I am holding back in moderation comments clearly aimed at personal attacks, undermining the discussion or having no value to the discussion.
2: Let’s be clear – I am not holding back any because I disagree with their claims or interpretation of the science. Far from it – we want those sort of comments to contibute to the discussion.
3: I recognise people get emotional and express themselves forcefully at times. While from time to time I may comment to discourage this, I do not hold back such comments if they have something contributing to the discussion. Yes, I may even express my own frustration at times (and in other places I have sometimes apologised and withdrawn as a result – I am human). This is very minor compared with some of the provocations I have recieved on this issue – in NZ this intimidation has caused many professionals to keep out of the discussion. Whenever scientists or dentists do come out publicly supporting fluoridation the anti-fluoridation facebook pages and letters to the editor direct their (often childish) anger at the person. They play the ball rather than the man. I am trying to prevent that happening here – and so far I think this has been successful.
4: I think the best tactic for commenters when name-calling occurs is not to allow themselves to be diverted. To pursue the scientific or ethical point they intend to make. It dees no good to retaliate in the same vein.
Finally, bitching about my lack of fairness in moderation is, in itself, a diversion from the real discussion.
Bill, could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride (natural or added) in drinking water at the recommended concentrations. I realise such regulations can cover dental preparations etc., but our interest is specifically normal drinking water.
Thank you Richard. You are a reasonable person. Indeed, I wanted to make a point. I too have used the term “prevention” with regards to fluoride much more than “mitigation” so I am just as guilty of spreading the prevention lie as anyone else. As scientists we need to be precise with our terms and the precision is a life long struggle for most of us.
Now the question remains, does fluoride mitigate dental caries. I think it does. The debate is to what extent. And of more serious and weighty concern is whether the ingestion of fluoride has a net benefit to the teeth and human health.
Just like tobacco in the 1970’s when I was in my Master’s of Public Health and DDS education, seemed to have significant scientific strength raising concerns of harm. Yet tobacco smoking was done in my hospital, airplane, restaurant, and promoted by the dentist who’s practice I took over. And some scientists still feel the research of tobacco’s harm is not convincing. American Cancer Society is just now working on a new large study to determine whether tobacco causes cancer. Perhaps you would agree we need to spend millions more on tobacco research, however, In my judgment we have enough science to be reasonably certain tobacco is not healthy.
The same judgment skills need to be used for the ingestion of fluoride. It is unwise for us to look at one study or studies supporting only one side of the controversy. Using similar principles of critical evaluation for all research is essential. We are premature to accept poor, incomplete, and flawed studies as “proof” of efficacy or “proof” of safety or “proof” of harm.
So many unanswered fundamental questions remain unanswered about fluoridation. The experts to make the judgment are the FDA CDER and it is not their job to make the decision unless an application is made to them with the evidence presented. So far they have said “Not effective.”
For example, what cause the 50% decline in dental caries prior to fluoride use? No one knows. Did the subsequent decline result from fluoridation or the unknown? No one knows. Without quality studies controlling for confounding factors or even total exposure, makes studies highly suspect.
To give everyone without their consent even more fluoride when about 2 out of 5 show signs of excess ingestion (dental fluorosis) makes no sense.
And when most developed countries and dental associations have rejected fluoridation, the USA should pause and ask, “what do they know we don’t?” Seems to me the height of arrogance to say that everything just because we are doing it is both safe and effective and better than the rest of the world.
Simply too many serious questions and good studies finding little or no benefit. And too many serious limitations and lack of controls in those studies.
We need at least one prospective randomized controlled trial. Until that time, caution should be used.
Ken, To your first comment, I applaud you for at least trying to have an open discussion. Frequently proponents of fluoridation fail to show up to forums and debates. What you are doing her is really sticking your neck out and you are brave. Bravo.
When science is weak, controversy abounds. You are opening one of dentistry’s four most controversial issues.
Bill is there a link to the 50% decline in dental caries independently of flouridation?
I can think of several candidates for causation.
1. Education.
2. Diet change including in better educated communities an acknowledgement of the effects of free sugar.
3. Reduction in smoking.
4. Promotion of healthy lifestyles and the “glamorisation” of beautiful teeth by Hollywood et al.
5. The use of fluoride tablets in some communities prior to fluoridated water supplies.
Ken, to your second question, “Bill, could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride. . . ”
Ken, you are now asking about the foundation of fluoridation regulatory oversight. I have many documents and will try to be very brief but this is complex, so don’t skim and skip. Please read carefully. Each item is critical.
The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act delegates the FDA CDER to regulate drugs (See also California Code 11014 and all states mirror FD&C Act) laws:
“21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”
Fluoride is listed in the USP.
And again: “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means . . . (B) articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease in man or other animals;”
Ken and Richard, stick with me. This is fundamental.
Fluoride is added to water with the intent to prevent (mitigate) dental disease in man. The final manufacturer of the drug has the legal responsibility to gain FDA CDER approval. Of course you will have lots of “but, Bill, what about. . . . ” and you are correct. However, I can’t answer all the concerns in the same sentence, so you have to look at the concerns one at a time. For example, if fluoride is not regulated as a drug, then it is regulated as a poison, pesticide, etc. Fluoride is not regulated as a food.
Intent of use determines jurisdiction. If intent of fluoride is to kill pests, then pesticide laws and approval are required. If the intent of fluoride is to treat water, then EPA laws and approval would be required. However, there is no dispute that the intent of adding fluoride to water is for the prevention of dental caries and the FDA CDER has jurisdiction over substances used with the intent to prevent disease. A clear and confident understanding that fluoride for ingestion with the intent to prevent disease is a drug is essential. Regulation is specific. EPA treats water. FDA treats people. Department of Agriculture treats plants.
Fluoride is considered lethal at 5 mg/Kg body weight, well within the 50 mg/Kg or less definition of a highly toxic substance of all state and Federal law poison (highly toxic substance) laws. In other words, fluoride is a highly toxic poison. However, all states and Federal law have exceptions for highly toxic laws such as, ” ‘hazardous substances’ shall not apply to . . . Foods, drugs, or cosmetics subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. . . .”
Ken, we need to dig deeper. Stay with me.
Regulation of fluoride has two options.
a. Either regulation under highly toxic hazardous substance laws,
b. Or under drug laws.
Based on intent to prevent disease, fluoridation is an unapproved legend (prescription) drug regulated under drug laws. However, if fluoridation is not a drug, then it is a hazardous substance. Either as pesticide or drug, misbranding laws apply.
The first step before the addition of fluoride to public water is for the public water provider manufacturer to receive written verification from the FDA CDER that the FDA CDER does or does not have jurisdiction over the addition, formulation, labeling, branding, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, and administering of fluoride to public water when the intent is to prevent dental caries in man. Simply ask the FDA CDER for written confirmation a NDA is not required. The public is placed at risk and not protected by evading designated authorized regulatory agencies.
Ballot measure, state and Federal laws apply to fluoridation.
Just as voters may with ballot measure vote for construction and payment of a new pipe line, water treatment plant or building, the voters expect the water districts to abide by all general and applicable laws and building codes which may not be detailed and listed in a ballot measure. For example, a ballot measure does not exempt other general laws. The voters have not authorized unapproved pipes, pumps, fittings, buildings, chemicals or drugs. And the voters expect to be informed should information and science discover flaws with the voter’s ballot measure. The fluoridated water label must clearly state dosage, risks, and cautions and specific wording approved by the FDA CDER. Government policy is notoriously slow to change when scientific evidence finds policy is flawed, especially when chemicals are misbranded and placed as a ballot measure.
The FDA CDER has appropriate policies and the scientific experts such as pharmacologists, toxicologist, and epidemiologists to make complex scientific judgments when evaluating scientific studies. It is not the courts, water boards, city’s or county’s roll to weigh the scientific evidence, but rather to ensure the correct government agency authorization and regulation is obtained. Citing a long list of health organizations supporting a practice does not negate the need for authorized regulatory oversight.
Authorized agencies in all countries will require a reasonable label for substances, especially for highly toxic chemicals regardless of dilution and for drugs. The label is required to be approved and applied by the final manufacturer of the substance.
The court in Coshow v. Escondid (2005) correctly ruled that the FDA does not regulate drinking water standards. However, the court should not be construed to suggest that the FDA does not regulate drugs simply because they have been diluted with public water. Would the court claim other drugs are not drugs such as penicillin or morphine if they are diluted in public water? No. The court also correctly held that the city fluoridated under police powers. Public Health actions with police powers, such as quarantine or mass medication, are restricted to highly contagious diseases. Dental caries are not highly contagious and if fluoride prevented dental caries, dentists would mostly be out of business.
Permissible existing maximum concentration of contaminants in water are regulated by the EPA. Some of these contaminants such as arsenic and fluoride are highly toxic and must be reduced if feasible (or the water not used as potable water). Additives are regulated by the EPA to treat and disinfect water. Contaminants are not intentionally added to water and are to be kept to a minimum. Maximum contaminant levels are not “authorized” concentrations of contaminants which a water district should attempt to achieve.
The formulating, manufacturing, and intentional addition of toxic substances such as arsenic or fluoride to water is regulated by poison laws if the intent is to poison people, or pesticide laws if used as a pesticide, or drug laws if the intent is to treat people.
The clear language of the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the EPA from regulating substances intended to treat people, such as fluoride.
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)
In 2009, HHS requested public comment on reducing the concentration of fluoridation to 0.7 ppm. Although HHS has several times promised to make a determination, the lowering of the concentration to 0.7 ppm will still not be protective and HHS has politically deferred action.
Ken, there is so much more, but that is just a sample of the problem.
Either fluoride is regulated under drug laws or poison laws. Which do you prefer?
Stuart, I have often thought that one reason for the improvement in oral health over time – as measure by dmft – could be changes in dental practice. I have often heard the story how in our youth dental nurses would insert fillings which later were considered unnecessary.
Richard,
You have asked about the four most controversial issues in dentistry and I would love to, but Ken has asked us to focus on the subject at hand. I think we need to respect Ken’s request. You can contact me privately at bill@teachingsmiles.com
Richard, you asked about iodine. Good question and I’m not an expert on iodine.
I do know that fluoride decreases thyroid function contributing to goiter and increased iodine reduces goiter. So the more fluoride ingested, the more iodine is required. Reduce fluoride exposure and iodine intake needs to decrease.
Second, iodine is not classified as highly toxic (less than 50 mg/kg causing death) and does not need to be regulated as a poison, pesticide or drug.
Third, iodine has been show to be used physiologically as a component of thyroid hormones. Therefore, thyroid is an essential mineral/nutrient and fluoride is not.
Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate fluoride ingestion, like scurvy is the result of inadequate Vit. C.
The FDA and the EPA are federal regulatory agencies. They are not bound by opinions, they are bound by federal statutes. Regardless of your personal opinion that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a drug or medication and therefore under the authority of the FDA, federal statutes deem different. The courts have upheld this each and every time that fluoride opponents have attempted it.
From the ADA “Fluoridation Facts”:
“On June 22, 1979, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify their roles and responsibilities in water quality assurance. The stated purpose of the MOU is to “avoid the possibility of overlapping
jurisdiction between the EPA and FDA with respect to control of drinking water additives. The two agencies agreed that the SDWA’s [Safe Drinking Water Act] passage in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s jurisdiction over drinking water as a ‘food’ under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Under the agreement, EPA enjoys exclusive regulatory authority over drinking water served by public water supplies, including any additives in such water. FDA retains jurisdiction over bottled drinking water under Section 410 of the FFDCA and over water (and substances in
water) used in food or food processing once it enters the food processing establishment.”
Just like tobacco in the 1970′s when I was in my Master’s of Public Health and DDS education, seemed to have significant scientific strength raising concerns of harm.
“Seemed”?
Either there was or there was not. There is no “seemed”.
(Hint: Science writes stuff down. In science journals. It doesn’t get lost. It’s possible to check these things and know for sure. Historians of science can tell you when smoking was known by the scientific community to be dangerous.)
Yet tobacco smoking was done in my hospital, airplane, restaurant, and promoted by the dentist who’s practice I took over.
Meaning what exactly?
Smoking does indeed cause cancer. That’s been known for a very long time. Well before the 70’s.
There was however a very slick, expensive and (fatally) very successful disinformation campaign to make common folk think it was all undecided and too tough to understand.
And some scientists still feel the research of tobacco’s harm is not convincing.
“Some scientists”, eh?
Let me tell you a little something about “some scientists”.
Some scientists still feel the research of evolution is not convincing.
(nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
Some scientists still feel the research of HIV is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of the efficacy of vaccines is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of anthropogenic climate change is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of the supposed dangers of DDT is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of evolution is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of germ theory is not convincing.
etc
etc
etc
It’s a very long list. Very long.
A golden oldie of science deniers of every type.
American Cancer Society is just now working on a new large study to determine whether tobacco causes cancer.
Oh really? They just woke up the other day and went “Gosh, does tobacco cause cancer? Hmm, Tough one. Beats us. Maybe we should get a study running to look at this cutting-edge hunch of ours.”
No.
The American Cancer Society (along with all the medical communities on the planet) knows perfectly well that smoking is a bloody stupid thing to do and it kills people.
In my judgment we have enough science to be reasonably certain tobacco is not healthy.
How magnanimous of you to go that extra mile and kinda sorta in a very foot-dragging way go with the scientific consensus.
Let’s not rush things shall we?
After all there’s still more research needed. Let’s reconvene in a few decades more. After all, the record shows that scientists disagee. Why there’s even a nice man on the telly helpfully informing you about all the doubt.
Water fluoridation is an adjustment of concentration of natural occurring trace element, or chemical if you prefer, in water supplies to a level optimal for community and individual health. As such, it is not medication unless the term is intentionally stretched.
As in many areas of life there are grey areas, all you have highlighted are ambiguities in definition and jurisdiction. I would bet my lunch that it was not the intent of those who drafted the regulations, that you have raised, to define community water fluoridation as being mass medication of a drug subject to the FDA.
Happily, definitions and regulations are arbitrary and can be changed.
I would hope that if anti fluoridationists do, for some reason, make headway through the backdoor of pedantic definitions, then lawmakers will move to remove any ambiguities. S Slott indicates that moves to define fluoridation as medication have so far been struck down by the courts.
Stuart, your question is one I’ve been struggling with for a long time. I wish I could post graphs here to shed light on your excellent question, but I can’t.
In 1930 the average 12 year old had about 12 cavities. When fluoridation started significantly in the USA population (ramped up), (mid 1960’s) and could start to show national effect, the 12 year old cavity rate was about 5.5/child. Fluoride toothpaste took hold nationally in the early 1970’s.
The question is, what caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation? Could it have been year round transportation of fresh fruits and veggies nation wide? Or as you ask Stuart could it have been:
“1. Education.
2. Diet change including in better educated communities an acknowledgement of the effects of free sugar.
3. Reduction in smoking.
4. Promotion of healthy lifestyles and the “glamorisation” of beautiful teeth by Hollywood et al.
5. The use of fluoride tablets in some communities prior to fluoridated water supplies.”
My answer is, I don’t know. Could have been a combination of those and antibiotics, or ????
Remember, not one single fluoridation study has controlled for that huge confounding factor(s) which are unknowns. About 5 cavity reduction in about 30 years and we don’t know what it was. We don’t know if those confounding factors are the reason the rest of the developed world, most without fluoridation, fluoride salt or fluoride supplants, reduced their cavities to the same rate as the USA. We don’t know.
In other words, world wide decay reduction regardless of fluoride exposure.
Research now claims about half a tooth surface reduction in dental caries when we don’t have a clue what caused 5.5 fewer cavity reductions.
Doctors, my professions of public health and dentistry should have serious concerns about the lack of scientific studies answering fundamental questions on the efficacy, safety and dosage of fluoride exposure.
My most serious detractors are not dentists and scientists but those who speak up with wild conspiracy theories. In fact, I wish the public health blunder were a conspiracy because at least my professions would have an excuse for our lack of scientific rigor.
Ken. I notice Dr. Bill DDS quotes among other things the official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States for a definition of “drug”. This rang alarm bells. I have noticed the source of fluoride features significantly among the antis. I have wondered about that. Homeopaths believe in chemical memory of course and presumeably F- ions remember they were once a fluorosilicate a rodent poison. Never mind that silica by itself is benign being approximately 70% of the Earth’s crust and exposed to us in various forms for millions of years.
I also noticed Dr. John Callett is active in these and other fringe health industries such as a cure all Vit D. I wondered if there is a connection and I think there is.
Perhaps that’s why Dr. Bill didn’t respond to my remarks about John Yiamouyiannis and his pursuit of alternative treatments such as Laetrile and Vitamins for his colonarectal cancer.
The link of course is the huge lucrative alternative (non scientific) therapy industry in the US.
My god! Once you visit the u tube lectures around this area you feel you have just peeked into a Victorian lunatic asylum. Either that or a Mississippi paddle steamer circa 1900!
I don’t think I’ll address or respond to Dr Bill DDS again (except in the third person). I noticed he expertly avoided referencing sources for the non F- reduction in caries. The kind of controlled experiment he is suggesting would never happen on ethical and practical grounds. You would never satisfy his criteria and he knows it.
But you and I know that valid comparisons can be made epidemiologically using sizeable subject populations relatively close geographically and socioeconomicaly especially multiple studies that reduces the significance of confounding variables to an insignificant level.
Once I discover correspondents have a concealed “other” that has skin in the games I lose interest in even polite discourse.
Stu.
Ken and others. The link I gave you to the weird land of American alternative therapies. Take care! It includes explicit porn sites! Surprise surprise! We are talking about a culture where anything goes if there’s a buck in it.
The short answer is that EPA terminated the MOU in 1988.
Here are more details.
In 1988, EPA published in the Federal Register a “Notice” that it was terminating its commitment to FDA to create a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (53 FR 25586-89) In this 1988 Notice EPA admitted that it “does not currently regulate the levels of additives in drinking water.” It explained that the “SDWA does not require EPA to control the use of specific additives in drinking water.” It states,
I appreciate and fully agree that the FDA is under Federal law, FD&C Act. And the FDA to Congress testified that fluoride when used for the prevention of diseases is a drug, not a nutrient.
If fluoride were a nutrient, go to the pharmacy and ask for fluoride to swallow. The pharmacist will require an Rx. Why? because it is an unapproved drug. Ask the pharmacist to check with the FDA. Many pharmacies have stopped carrying fluoride because it is an unapproved drug.
Read our fluoride toothpaste label. It is approved and says “Drug Facts.” Why? Because the FDA says it is a drug. And the FDA requires on the approved label, “do not swallow.” The reference is to a quarter milligram of fluoride, the same amount of fluoride as in one glass of fluoridated water.
You have given a citation of the ADA to refute the FD&C Act. The ADA references an historical agreement between the FDA and EPA which has long since been abandoned. Please remember that the American Dental Association is not a Federal Agency and simply a group of like minded Dentists. The ADA testified in court that they had no duty to protect the public, they simply gave out information. As such, the ADA in their effort to support fluoridation failed to read all aspects of the MOU between the FDA and EPA.
In 1979, the EPA and FDA entered into an MOU where the FDA agreed not to enforce its food authority over public drinking water in exchange for EPA creating a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (CP 224-31) In the FFDCA, Congress gave FDA authority to regulate foods to ensure they are “safe” (21. U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(A)) and drugs to ensure they are “safe and effective” (21. U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B)). Normally for drinking water, only food regulations would be applicable and prior to 1979, the FDA generally regulated drinking water as a food. (CP224.) But after passage of the SDWA, EPA and FDA were concerned that FDA’s “food” authority and EPA’s “public drinking water” authority might result in “duplicative and inconsistent regulations” so they entered an MOU. In the MOU, FDA agreed not to use its “food” authority to regulate public drinking water, based on a commitment that EPA would adopt regulations to control additives in public drinking water.
There is no mention in the MOU that FDA would, or could, give up its “drug” authority over public drinking water and public drinking water additives. Congress required “drugs” to be “effective” (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B)) and Congress never gave EPA authority to regulate drug effectiveness. The MOU inartfully states;
[EPA and FDA] have determined that the passage of the SDWA in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s authority under the FFDCA over water used for drinking water purposes.
Read in context with the other provisions of the MOU this can only possibly be true with respect to FDA’s “food” authority and cannot be true with respect to FDA’s “drug” authority (CP 224-5; See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 474 U.S. 361, 368, 106 S.Ct. 681, 88 L. Ed.2d 691 (1986) (“agency interpretation” cannot “alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.”))
In a subsequent section, the MOU states;
[EPA and FDA] agreed that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s passage in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s jurisdiction over drinking water as a “food” under the [FFDCA].
Thus the MOU itself clarifies that the MOU only impacts FDA’s “food” regulations. The MOU states:
Under the agreement, EPA now retains exclusive jurisdiction over drinking water served by public water supplies, including any additives in such water.
In context, EPA does not have exclusive jurisdiction when public drinking water, including any additives in such waters, are “drugs” because Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction over drugs to the FDA. (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 126, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000).) Congress has clearly defined “drugs in 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1). Further EPA claims no authority that would give it jurisdiction over the determination of “effectiveness” of drugs.
In 1988, EPA published in the Federal Register a “Notice” that it was terminating its commitment to FDA to create a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (53 FR 25586-89) In this 1988 Notice EPA admitted that it “does not currently regulate the levels of additives in drinking water.” It explained that the “SDWA does not require EPA to control the use of specific additives in drinking water.” It states, (see appendix )
Resource constraints and the need to implement mandatory provisions of the SDWA precluded the Agency from implementing the comprehensive program originally envisioned. . .
Steve, your comment is seriously pertinent. Stick with me and don’t skip over this. If you want a copy of the MOU, let me know and I can forward one to you.
1. The MOU relates to water as a food and the word food is used several times. The MOU does not mention the word fluoride.
2. Have you contacted the FDA CDER for FOI? I have several times. The FDA CDER agrees they have jurisdiction and are “deferring regulatory action.”
3. The Federal Safe Drinking water act prohibits the EPA from adding anything to water for the prevention of disease.
42 USC 300g-1(b)(11) states:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”
Steve, hang in there with me. Don’t skip over this. For greater clarification, I contacted the EPA with FOI and EPA responded:
“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water. Decisions on whether or not to fluoridate drinking water are made at a state or local level.”
4. The EPA Could Not Enter Into an MOU54 With the FDA Which Requires the EPA to Violate the SDWA. If the EPA Did, Then the MOU is Invalid.
The MOU Relates to Food and NOT the Addition of Fluoride to Water With the Intent to Prevent Disease, Drugs.
5. The EPA presented to Congress:
“To answer your first question of whether we have in our possession any empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, the answer is no.”
6. The EPA professionals have been brutally concise, clear and ethical: “In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”
The EPA scientists testified in court, “. . . NFFE believes that serious errors were made by the Agency in setting the
fluoride RMCL . . . the Agency deliberately chose not to base its decision on relevant expertise. . . . The process by which EPA arrived at the RMCL for fluoride is scientifically irrational and displays an unprofessional review of relevant scientific data.”
Hang in there Steve, we still have more. The EPA scientists advised the Court:
“Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940’s and 1950’s as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer
manufacture as, “…an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of
fluoride…”
7. Drug regulation in the US began in 1736. As early as 1848, the US began limited drug regulation. Congress adopted more comprehensive drug statutes in the Food and Drug Act of 1906, which prohibited the manufacturer of any drug that was “adulterated or misbranded.” This Act defined “drug” as:
“All medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animals;”
In 1912 Congress amended the Act to prevent false claims. In 1938 Congress amended the Act to require FDA approval for new drug application (NDA) to demonstrate a drug was safe BEFORE entering the market.
In 1951 (Durham-Humphrey Amendment) Congress explicitly defined two classes of medications, prescription and over-the-counter (OTC). In response, the FDA adopted a regulation stating:
i. The program for fluoridation of public water supplies recommended by the Federal Security Agency, through the Public Health Service, contemplates the controlled addition of fluorine at a level optimum for the prevention of dental caries.
ii. Public water supplies do not ordinarily come under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. . .
iii. The Federal Security Agency will regard water supplies containing fluorine, within the limitations recommended by the Public Health Service, as not actionable under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
And it was published as amended in 1995.
In 1996 the FDA reversed its position to not enforce the FFDCA regarding fluoridated water after the EPA/FDA MOU was terminated and after Congress adopted the DSHEA that defined minerals as drugs if used to prevent specific diseases. In 1996, the FDA determined that its 1952 regulation was obsolete or no longer necessary and the regulation was revoked. (61 FR 29476) The revocation of 212 CFR 250.203 occurred after the EPA announced the “Termination of the Federal Drinking Water Additive Program” effective April 7, 1990. (53 FR 25586-89; CP 142-45) The purpose of a 1979 MOU between FDA and EPA was having EPA operate the federal drinking water additive program. (44FR 42775-78; CP 224-31.) EPA’s announcement of termination of its additive program was effective notice to FDA that the 1979 MOU was terminated. (53 FR 42776, CP 225 “This [MOU] shall continue in effect unless . . . terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other.”)
The revocation of 21 CFR 250.203 also occurred after the adoption by Congress of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-417; “DSHEA”). This 1994 Act of Congress clarified Congressional intent that minerals including fluoride are drugs if the intended use is to prevent disease.
A dietary supplement is deemed to be “food,” [21 U.S.C.] 321 (ff), which is defined in part as “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals,” Id. 321(f)(1), except when it meets the definition of a “drug,” which is defined in part as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.”
(Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 714 F. Supp.2d 48, 50 (D.D.C. 2010).)
Under the DSHEA, dietary supplements include minerals. (21 U.S.C.321(ff)(1)(B)) In adopting the DSHEA, Congress clarified its intent that fluoride mineral when used to prevent disease is a drug under federal law. The Commissioner of the FDA now concurs.
In 1962 Congress amended the FFDCA standard for approval of a NDA or ANDA from “safe” to “safe and effective” for the intended use. (Samuels at 545.) For drugs with approved NDAs under the 1938 Act to retain these NDAs, they were required to demonstrate they were effective. (Id.; Weinberger v. Hynson, Wescott & Dunning, Inc, 412 U.S. 609, 612-15, 93 S.Ct. 2469, 37 L.Ed.2d 207 (1973).)
In 1972, the FDA established a new approval process for non-prescription drugs. (21 CFR Part 330.) This process resulted in the establishment of over-the-counter monographs for various drug classifications including a monograph for anticaries drug products that do not require prescription. (21 CFR Part 355.) This final rule, as amended, provides that all OTC anticaries drug products introduced to the Market after April, 1997 must comply with general conditions in 21 CFR 330.1 and with anticaries monograph conditions in 21 CFR Part 355; otherwise a NDA or ANDA is required.
On or after [April 7, 1997] no OTC drug product that is subject to the monograph and that contains a non-monograph condition . . . may be initially introduced. . . into interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an approved application or abbreviated application.
Also, FDA regulations provide that any anticaries drug that includes hydrogen fluoride requires an NDA. (21 CFR 310.545(a)(2) and (b).)
Once again, federal law is clear “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means
(A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
(B) articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease in man or other animals;”
Sodium Fluoride is listed in the 2007 US Pharmacopoeia pages 3194-3196. Congress, the President, the Oregon Legislature and Governor have clearly defined drugs, and fluoride is listed as a drug and the intent of adding/formulating fluoride with water is to prevent dental disease. The intent of use makes fluoride a drug regardless of whether it is a placebo or hoax. Although the addition of fluoride has been tossed like a hot potato between agencies, currently the FDA CDER has jurisdiction of substances used with the intent to prevent disease even if they are mixed in public water.
As early as 1916, the federal Supreme Court concurred that products that were otherwise defined as “foods” would be “drugs” under federal statute when labeling for the substance includes statements of therapeutic or preventative effect. (Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U.S. 510, 513-14, 36 S.Ct. 190, 60 L.Ed. 411 (1016).) And after the 1938 Act again concurred that “food products” will be “drugs” based on “labeling.” (Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 346, 69 S.Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed. 52 (1948).) In 1969, the federal Supreme Court, in finding a product was a drug, explained,
Congress intended to define “drug” [in 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B)] far more broadly than does the medical profession…. The word “drug” is a term of art for the purposes of the Act, encompassing far more than the strict medical definition of that word.
(United States v. An Articl of Drug …Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784, 793, 89 S.Ct. 1410, 22 L.Ed.2d 726 (1969).) The Bacto-Unidisk Court
Ken,
Stuart is gone crazy of the subject. If he has a problem with the FD&C Act that has science, or if he has problems with science, then he needs to talk about science and not jump all over the place regarding cancer treatments and knocking people.
I just demonstrated that the ADA has an obsolete reference. But that does not mean all their references are bogus.
Ken. Valid comparisons can’t really be made between populations greatly seperated by space and time can they?
Presumeably changes in diet, for example the marketing of coke on a global scale would affect valid comparisons before and after WWII?
American servicemen inadvertently promoted Camel cigarettes and Coke.
I remain convinced that local studies of adjacent populations are the best guidelines. I notice some of the antis in NZ are fond of quoting precedents in Europe and elsewhere with absolutely no consideration of other mitigating factors ie cultural and other regulatory factors.
Bill, I asked a simple question becuase you had implied that regulations described fluoride, when used to top up natural lecels in water to an acceptable concentration, as a drug.
My question was:
“could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride (natural or added) in drinking water at the recommended concentrations. I realise such regulations can cover dental preparations etc., but our interest is specifically normal drinking water.”
Now, I have had a sleep before tackling your answer and my refreshed mind is still not convinced by it. No wonder people who make this sort of point end up involving lawyers (and even then don’t seem to none able to convince most people). This question is currently before the high court in NZ – in action brought by an astroturf “health” organisation. They will lose, but of course appeal to drag out the issue for several years. Meanwhile giving local politicians and excuse to ignore the declared will of the voters.
Really dishonest and undemocratic – no wonder people are getting angry with these activist organisations and their bullying behaviour.
In my first article in this exchange I called Paul’s use of the drug argument a classical bait and switch fallacy. He and you are using a definition of “drug” so loose as the capture F (and inevitably the minerals like Ca and PO4) in water as a drug. Then switching to a narrow definition that requires informed consent and might cover something like a dental treatment contains f! but not drinking water.
I am not impressed by such arguments which involve a circuitous wandering around regulations, assumptions and definitions to arrive at a preordained conclusion.
Ken.
As far as I’m aware no one got me back on the subject because I never really left it. Crazy or not I can recognise a flim flam operator when I see one!
The organisation is, I think, the NZ Health trust. I think it may have been set up for financial reasons to protect activists from consequences of legal actions.
Scanning their material they are in to things like chemtrails. I have been amazed at the proportion of local anti-fluoride activists, especially the leaders, who are also active on things like chemtrails, anti-vaccinations, homeopathy, alternative medications and supplements, kinesiology, conspiracies about Agenda 21 and population control, etc. in fact, it is not hard to get them diverted onto such subjects.
I think journalists should not stop at calling them a “health” organisation – readers should have the opportunity to see what they are really about and draw their own conclusions.
It gets worse, Amy Adams, now a crown minister, was at one stage a spokesperson for this nest of kooks.
Get Informed ……….
Click here and Watch this 12min interview with NZHT spokeswoman Amy Adams. Read more about what the NZHT is doing for our freedom of health choices by clicking on the menu options.
Don’t be surprised Ken it’s the subject not the object that is flawed. Bigots are the same. They have a host of bete noirs. Some people see demons everywhere.
NZHT! Interesting! Their bottled packaged products are natural but fluoride isn’t. Didn’t these people argue against folic acid in bread? It’s a turf war isn’t it?
Didn’t these people argue against folic acid in bread?
Dunno but ex minister Katherine Rich was the spin doctor for some group against the stuff. at the time I remember thinking her reasoning was outrightly dishonest.
Science denial seems to get a sympathetic ear with National Party pollies.
She would be representing the interests grocery retailers wouldn’t she? Her father Dr. Jock Allison, retired agricultural scientist is a climate change denier.
Here
“There are few data from which to estimate total exposure to and
the bioavailability of fluoride, and there are inconsistencies in reports
on the characterization of its adverse effects.
There is clear evidence from India and China that skeletal fluorosis
and an increased risk of bone fractures occur at a total intake of 14 mg
fluoride/day and evidence suggestive of an increased risk of bone
effects at total intakes above about 6 mg fluoride/day.
Excess exposure to bioavailable fluoride constitutes a risk to
aquatic and terrestrial biota.
Fluoride-sensitive species can be used as sentinels for the identification
of fluoride hazards to the environment.
There is a need to improve knowledge on the accumulation of
fluoride in organisms and on how to monitor and control this.
The biological effects associated with fluoride exposure should be
better characterized.”
From WHO_EHC_227
There is much more in the report you can read some for & some against
It would appear we certainly have toxicity to at least the bone structure above above 6mg fluoride which almost halves the CDC recommendation of 10 mg per day scary isn’t it. Both supposedly reading current literature.
Even if you take the view damage up to 10mg/day is cosmetic a safety factor of 4mg/day doesn’t constituent a very good safety margin
Ian, when you quote reports like this could you please provide identification and reference information. Preferably a link.
When commenter don’t do this the claims look false, so it is their own interest to back up claims with workable references. And it is disrespectful to others here not to.
Shellfish naturally accumulate fluoride which is quite likely why Pacific people were reported by early European explorers as having excellent teeth.
This simply proves fluoride is not a hazard or toxin at appropriate concentrations.
In fairness, I will check into the information you have provided in regard to EPA regulatory authority over fluoride at the optimal level, but it still appears that you are predicating it all upon your own opinion that fluoride at this level is a drug. It is not, as the courts have upheld. It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which already exists in water. The EPA has full regulatory authority over all such water additives.
The reason fluoride requires a prescription at the pharmacy is not because is has not been FDA approved. That would make no sense. No, the reason is to place responsibility on the provider to ensure that the fluoride supplement in addition to the patient’s primary water source, does not cause an overexposure to fluoride. This ensures as best as possible that patient’s primary water source has been evaluated for fluoride concentration prior to their being given supplements. Requiring prescriptions for fluoride supplements simply allows the same precaution against overexposure as does water fluoridation. Prior to fluoridating any system, that system must be evaluated for the concentration of existing fluoride.
My cite of the ADA was not meant to use the ADA as an authoritative source on water additive regulations, it was simply given to provide the source of the quote I inserted. The statutes and regulations are readily available as a matter of public record.
Skeletal fluorosis is not an issue with water fluoridation. The United States is 73% fluoridated.
“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.”
Adverse effects on the environment are not an issue with water fluoridation.
“Fluoridated water losses during use, dilution of sewage by rain and groundwater infiltrate, fluoride removal during secondary sewage treatment, and diffusion dynamics at effluent outfall combine to eliminate fluoridation related environmental effects. In a literature review, Osterman found no instance of municipal water fluoridation causing recommended environmental concentrations to be exceeded, although excesses occurred in several cases of severe industrial water pollution not related to water fluoridation. Osterman found that overall river fluoride concentrations theoretically would be raised by 0.001-0.002 mg/l, a value not measurable by current analytic techniques. All resulting concentrations would be well below those recommended for environmental safety.”
—–Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States
Howard F. Pollick, BDS, MPH
Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343–350
—-Osterman JW. Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment. Am J Public Health. 1990; 80:1230-5.
First: FDA CDER. Several parts to your question. But first the answers need to be framed with an understanding of drug regulatory agencies. The manufacturers seek approval, not the agency looking for manufacturers to regulate. The manufacturer must seek approval prior to marketing. Regulation after the product is being sold does not protect the public. Drugs must be approved prior to marketing. I have personally made application to the FDA for a dental device and received approval. The process for devices is reasonable. For drugs, the process costs about $3/4 of a million dollars for the application and that does not include all the necessary research to support the application. Very expensive. Fees can be waved with application and prior to marketing, approval is required.
Drug Digest 1975, “The FDA has addressed a ”regulatory letter” to approximately 35 companies marketing combination drugs consisting of fluoride and vitamins. The letter states that these drugs are related to a product (Ernziflur lozenges) for which FDA has withdrawn approval of a new drug application. The NDA for Enziflur was withdrawn because there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling.”
Because FDA has withdrawn approval for fluoride supplements, water districts do not want to rock the ship by making application for approval. If denied, the FDA would or should send regulatory letters to all the other water districts.
It is the obligation of those selling the drug to gain approval. The FDA CDER says ((about 2010 Pharmacy Letters) there are thousands of unapproved drugs on the market. They are doing incentives for manufacturers to gain approval, but they have a long way to go and falling behind.
Specifically to your question, the FDA CDER has approved fluoride toothpaste with variable wording on the label, but not fluoride varnish or fluoride supplements. Ken, you are correct with a concern that fluoride varnish is an unapproved drug. When a manufacturer chooses not to gain FDA approval, they set up a sister company and sell the unapproved drug directly to doctors so the doctor has greater liability.
You have asked for a specific quote, I presume position statement, on the FDA CDER. Approval is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the patient or public. The FDA CDER is very clear. The intent of use, by the public perception, claims on the internet, manufacturer marketing or other places is the basis of whether a product is a drug or not. Makes no difference if the substance is a placebo and no claim of benefit is made. In the USA you can go to many health food stores like Whole Foods and they have a “supplement section.” Read the labels and wording of what the supplement treats is not on the bottle. A sales person will help you for the right potent for your ills or fears, but the manufacturer is very careful. You can look in a book at the end of the isle for help. Some wording such as “supports heart health” has been approved.
Second: “topping up natural fluoride concentrations in water.”
As I explained earlier, the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to treat water and prohibits the EPA from treating people. It makes no difference whether the water district is adding a placebo or hocus pocus, the “INTENT” of adding the substance to the water makes fluoride a drug. Better a drug than a poison. Based on laws, either fluoride is regulated as a poison or drug. Take your pick. Once the “intent” is determined, the regulatory agency needs to be contacted for approval.
If “topping up” were an exception to drug laws then the manufacturer should have a letter or notice that they are exempt.
Lithium could be added to “top up” concentration, a substance to help many have better moods. With more time and patients on Lithium, we now understand more side effects and that option has been pulled off the table.
Viagra is another option for water districts to “top” up. Think of all the people who would move to that water district!!!
Penicillin is naturally occurring and could also be “topped up” and help prevent infections.
None of those are legal without the proper regulatory agency’s approval.
Ken,
You have raised several excellent points.
Further to your comment: “In my first article in this exchange I called Paul’s use of the drug argument a classical bait and switch fallacy. He and you are using a definition of “drug” so loose as the capture F (and inevitably the minerals like Ca and PO4) in water as a drug. Then switching to a narrow definition that requires informed consent and might cover something like a dental treatment contains f! but not drinking water.”
Read FDA CDER drug approval guidance documents, the FDA CDER is very specific and uses several illustrations to explain the definition of drugs, cosmetics, and foods.
Why are Ca and PO4 not drugs?
First, they are not toxic at 50 mg/Kg of BW and fluoride is toxic and regulated as a highly toxic substance. (Also remember that CaF is about 70 times less toxic than NaF).
Second Ca and PO4 are required for physiologic function. In other words, no Ca in the diet and the body dies. The lack or absence of fluoride in the diet does not cause any disease, as illustrated by mother’s milk.
Ken,
You suggest I am trying to use a narrow definition or wide definition and not following regulations.
I have given you Federal laws under which all in the USA must follow. If there is one area of law which is reasonably well fleshed out, it is drug laws and water laws.
I am consistent with my definitions. Please read my posts again. The definition I am using is based on Federal and State Laws which are similar in all countries. Would you like me to get you the NZ laws? USA FDA CDER guidance documents give further guidance. Took me years to switch my position from pro-fluoride to fluoride free water. Not easy to admit I had only looked at one side of the research and only followed the ADA instead of looking at the laws and science for myself.
Most government agencies when contacted, need very specific questions and repeated questions. This is a complex issue. And always get responses in writing. Your 1981 Medicine law states:
“Meaning of medicine, new medicine, prescription medicine, and restricted medicine
(1) Subject to subsection (2), in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term medicine means any substance or article, other than a medical device, that is manufactured, imported, sold, or supplied wholly or principally—
(a) for administering to 1 or more human beings for a therapeutic purpose; or . . . . ”
Is fluoride formulated with water for the purpose of treating water to make it safe to drink or for therapeutic purposes?
Hi Steve, I trust you had a good day of Gratitude and Thanksgiving.
A few comments to your post. Your comments in quotations.
Steve: “In fairness, I will check into the information you have provided in regard to EPA regulatory authority over fluoride at the optimal level, but it still appears that you are predicating it all upon your own opinion that fluoride at this level is a drug.”
Bill: the EPA does not use the term optimal level for fluoride because there is no optimal level above zero for toxicants. EPA uses the term “Contaminant” for fluoride. Contaminants are not desired.
Steve: “It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which already exists in water.”
Bill: My understanding is NaF (and HFS) is toxic at about 5 to 15 mg/kg BW whereas naturally occurring CaF is toxic at about 700 mg/kg BW. The difference is substantial and the two substances are not identical. CaF is not very soluble.
Steve: “The EPA has full regulatory authority over all such water additives.”
Bill: Yes, if the intent is to treat water. If the intent is to formulate a therapeutic substance, a drug or medicine, then the FDA CDER has regulatory authority. In other words, you and I cannot dilute our Crack with public water and call it an additive and under EPA authority.
Steve: “The reason fluoride requires a prescription at the pharmacy is not because is has not been FDA approved. That would make no sense.”
Bill: Look up fluoride on the approved drug data base of the FDA. Easy search. I’ve done it several times and my pharmacist did it in about 30 seconds. After seeing it was not approved he pulled it from the shelf. It is legal for a pharmacist to sell unapproved drugs, but FDA is cracking down on them so they are pulling the unapproved drugs off their shelves. Even in time of war, a person cannot be given an approved drug for an unapproved purpose without their consent.
Steve: “No, the reason is to place responsibility on the provider to ensure that the fluoride supplement in addition to the patient’s primary water source, does not cause an overexposure to fluoride.”
Bill: Steve, two points. First, the doctor can prescribe anything they want in any quantity they want and the doctor is liable for adverse effects. Still illegal for the manufacturer, but FDA has bigger fish to fry. Second, you make an excellent consideration, dosage. Some people drink almost no water and others drink as much as 11 liters a day. Lets think through your valid concern. Assume one person drinks 1 liter/day at 1 ppm. Adding a supplement of 0.5 mg would, according to your (and my) concern be a 50% increase (excess) and perhaps an over dose at 1.5 mg/day of fluoride. Are you concerned about 1.5 mg/day of fluoride to be excessive? I am for infants, children, and some with compromised kidney thyroid or absorption concerns. Well, if you and I are concerned about 1.5 mg/day, then 11 liters at 1 ppm or 11 mg/day of fluoride should give us serious pause for concern.
Steve: “Requiring prescriptions for fluoride supplements simply allows the same precaution against overexposure as does water fluoridation.”
Bill: Please explain. I don’t understand how water fluoridation when people drink vastly different quantities of water is any protection against overexposure.
Sorry, Bill, but you are still predicating your arguments on your own personal opinion that fluoride at the optimal level is a drug. You can certainly try to make that argument in court as have other fluoridation opponents, but the courts have rejected it each and every time.
In regard to NaF and CaF being different from that added with fluoridation, yes, that argument is frequently attempted by fluoridation opponents. I’m surprised that you attempt it, however, as you seem far more informed than to make that mistake. The fact is that the only products of HFA hydrolysis are fluoride ions and trace heavy metal contaminants. The fluoride ions are identical to those which exist in water “naturally” as released from CaF, and those released from NaF, or any other source. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of its source. The trace contaminants are in such miniscule amounts that they fall far short of EPA mandated maximums (MCL) and EPA mandated NSF Standard 60 certification requirements. The most prevalent of these contaminants is arsenic. The amount of arsenic detected in NSF testing has been only 0.6 parts per billion, or 60% of the NSF certification maximum which is only 10 % of the EPA. MCL for arsenic. The other contaminants are in even more miniscule amounts and fall even farther short of NSF allowed maximums under Standard 60. Certainly you may attempt to argue your own opinion as to what should be allowable maximums, if you want, but you would be arguing against the stringent safety controls set by respected regulatory bodies of the U.S. government. Sixty eight years worth of experience with fluoridation has not shown any proof of these controls being inadequate.
Your obsession with FDA approval of fluoride is moot. The FDA has no authority or jurisdiction over mineral additives to water. There is no requirement or need for FDA approval of fluoride at 0.7 ppm added to water. My statement that your argument made no sense was in regard to your erroneous claim that the reason fluoride requires a prescription is because it is not FDA approved. Your reason is what would make no sense. My explanation of the reason for prescription of fluoride supplements is self explanatory in my previous comment.
Once again, as 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 regulations. It should be noted that the FDA does not have the authority to approve many of the products we use every day.”
—-http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_quiz.html.
I have no idea why you would prescribe 0.5 mg fluoride supplement to an individual whose primary water supply already has a fluoride content of 1 ppm. This is exactly my point. Requiring prescription for fluoride supplements ascribes responsibility to the prescriber to evaluate the patient’s primary water source for fluoride content before any additional is given. In the case of your patient who drinks one liter of water fluoridated at 1 ppm, there would be no need to give him a fluoride supplement.
Anyone who drinks 11 liters of water per day had best be concerned about water toxicity, not fluoride. My statement was that water fluoridation accords the same safety precaution against overexposure as does requiring a prescription. Both require existing levels of fluoride in the primary water supply be evaluated prior to the addition of more fluoride either through fluoridation or supplements.
The broad range between fluoride at the optimal level and the IOM established upper level before adverse effects, easily allows for differences in water consumption. Even your water toxic fellow who consumes 11 liters of water per day would only be ingesting 7.7 mg of fluoride. That excessive amount of water consumption would most certainly be at the upper range of the CDC estimate for total intake, i.e. 75 % from the water. So, even this fellow would only be consuming 10.26 mg of fluoride from all sources daily, assuming there is anyone who drinks this ridiculous amount and survives. Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for such excessive behavior, anyway.
Steve,
You suggested skeletal fluorosis is not an issue with water fluoridation. Don’t brush that concern into the dust bin just yet, NRC 2006 did not.
Several serious problems. First, some people drink a lot more water than others. Perhaps at 1 liter a day or 2 a day, but what about 11 liters of water a day? And what if they are also swallowing toothpaste or eating foods naturally high in fluoride or with fluoride pesticides or fluoride post harvest fumigants, etc?
Another huge problem is just like decay is not the same size or problem for each tooth, skeletal fluorosis is different for different people. In some areas of the world endemic skeletal fluorosis exists. As you can imagine, not everyone in those communities is all crippled up. So what are the early signs of skeletal fluorosis? Arthritic like symptoms and joint problems. Could excess fluoride ingestion cause arthritic like symptoms. Yes. Research is raising concerns that fluoride might contribute to our huge increases in arthritic like symptoms and joint problems. Definitive evidence? Yes, that fluoride can contribute. Certainly many other factors, just like white spots on the teeth are not all dental fluorosis.
And we have not touched several huge problems of research evaluation, total exposure, risks, and benefits.
Alarming to consider the magnitude of the research problem with fluoridation. Not one single prospective randomized controlled trial and so many variables and unknowns. In effect, we are discussion and have taken positions on a subject which we really have incomplete evidence.
Proponents will take poor or fair research and say it is good with gusto and confidence. Opponents will do the same for their research. Then each will rip the other person’s research apart finding serious flaws. In such debate, it is almost better to not have any research because the focus is on the flaws of the other person’s research. The best example of that is fluoride and the brain. Proponents have no research and so they pick at each hair on the elephant and fail to recognize the elephant.
For example,
1. Plotting the 50 US states on the percent of whole state population fluoridated and mental retardation reported in 1992.
As the percent of the populations on fluoridated water increases a tripling of mental retardation is found. Consistent with half a standard deviation drop in IQ, about 8 IQ points and consistent with Choi’ study from Harvard.
I can hear everyone say, “that’s impossible with water fluoridation at 1 ppm.” Well, water is only one source of fluoride. Yep. Looks like we just might have lower IQ with fluoridation. And proponents say, “poor study.” And I say, Yep, show me your better study. And proponents are silent. But silence is not proof of safety or harm. The question then must be asked, why not ask for FDA CDER opinion? Those are the best experts in the world at evaluating science. Proponents are silent. And then we start to discuss the flaws in the research rather than the elephant in the room which is a lack of USA studies on the effects of fluoridation on IQ. We don’t even look, and that is supposed to prove safety. Makes no sense to me.
2. “The effects of excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy on neonatal neurobehavioral development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. . . The results showed that the urinary fluoride levels of mothers from the high fluoride group were higher than those of the control group. There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score
between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological. Although development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. . . The
results showed that the urinary fluoride levels of mothers from the high fluoride group were higher than those of the control group. There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were
also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction between the two groups. It is concluded that fluoride is toxic to neurodevelopment and that excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy can cause adverse effects on neonatal neurobehavioral development.” For mother’s in the “high fluoride group the urinary fluoride level averaged 3.58±1.47 mg/L, .
. . the control group (1.74±0.96 mg/L)”
Li J, li Y, Shao QL, Wu CY, EFFECTS OF HIGH FLUORIDE LEVEL ON NEONATAL NEUROBEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, Fluoride April-June 2008, 41(2)165-170
[Translated by Bin Li and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Endemiology 2004 Sep;23(5):463-5.] Appendix 39 Full Article. Note: Subject wells 1.7- 6.0 mg F/L and control wells 0.5-1.0 mg F/L and subject urine samples were 3.58 mg F/L ±1.47 and controls 0.18-2.6 mg F/L statistically significant (p<0.01)
I can hear the proponents screaming, "that is from the Fluoride Journal and we won't accept that." My response is two things. First, it was published first by the Chinese in their peer reviewed journal. And second, show me USA research which reports safety. Only after you provide better research can we trash their research. Is that article proof? No but it is a nail in the coffin.
3. “This paper presents a systematic literature review conducted to
investigate whether fluoride exposure has increased the risk of low intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in China over the past 20 years. . . . Children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area.” SOURCE: Tang QQ, DuJ, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ,
Fluoride and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis, Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Winter: 126(1-3):115-20
Remember, the USA fluorosis has gone up to 40% of children and that is after redefining dental fluorosis. So look at the serum fluoride concentrations. Reasonable journal, reasonable study. Are we going to throw out all Chinese studies because of prejudice? Simply because they looked first while we in the USA sat smugly by claiming safe and effective because we refused to look ad study?
4. “We found that exposure to fluoride (F) in urine was associated
with reduced Performance, Verbal, and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounders. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable…. The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.” SOURCE: Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.
OK, lets rip this one apart. Increased fluoride in urine. Better than measuring water, but still we assume good kidney function.
5. “These negative correlations between IQ and urinary As and
between IQ and urinary fluoride indicate that exposure to high levels of As or fluoride, or both, could affect children’s intelligence… This study indicates that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with neurotoxic effects in children.” SOURCE: Wang SX, et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7.
Remember, the HFS acid added to water often contains some arsenic and increases lead in blood serum.
6. “In agreement with other studies elsewhere, these findings
indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence.” SOURCE: Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178-183.
7. In 2006, more than 20 of the human studies finding brain damage
with higher exposures of fluoride had not been published in English. The 2006 NRC Report said, “A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough
to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 6. Those studies of US populations have not been done.
OK, so we now have almost 8 years after the NRC called for more studies. Please provide the quality studies, you know, the kind you think are quality, done in the USA, published in good journals, which have found the lower threshold at which not neurologic damage is observed.
Many more studies I can put here, those are just a start.
Bill, you’re dealing in hypotheticals. I’m dealing in realities. Skeletal fluorosis is so extremely rare in the U.S. as to be almost non-existent. With 73% of the nation fluoridated, were we all being overexposed, skeletal fluorosis would be rampant.
Steve
Steven D. Slott, DDS PO Box 1744 Burlington, NC. 27216
Steve
“Sorry, Bill, but you are still predicating your arguments on your own personal opinion that fluoride at the optimal level is a drug. You can certainly try to make that argument in court as have other fluoridation opponents, but the courts have rejected it each and every time.”
Etc etc.
An absolutely outstanding example of accuracy and clarity of thought. The antis persist in obfuscation, equivocation and hypotheticals “what if ….”. Given their small numbers I wonder if they fall within the frequency range of OCDs? I’ll look it up.
On the question of OCDs in relation to the fluoride debate. I did some delving and came up with some encouraging preliminaries. Readers can judge for themselves and read further. At the very least it is worth bearing in mind when confronting a certain kind of patterned ritualised procedure that seems to be immune to reasoned argument or selectively dwells on improbabilities and hypotheticals that seem to defy common experience.
The Introduction in Stanford.edu starts
“Clinical Picture
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized by obsessions or compulsions or both. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Fourth Edition) describes obsessions as recurrent, persistent ideas, thoughts, images or impulses that are experienced at some time during the illness as ego-dystonic, i.e., intrusive, senseless, excessive, repugnant, or absurd. The obsessions are not simply worries about real-life problems. Common morbid themes are contamination, aggression, harm avoidance, distasteful or excessive sexual ideas, religious concerns, fears of offending others, a need to know, orderliness and perfection. The person recognizes these ideas as products of his or her own mind and tries to suppress or ignore them, without much success.”
“Despite the irrational behaviour, OCD is sometimes associated with above-average intelligence.[4][5] Its sufferers commonly share personality traits such as high attention to detail, avoidance of risk, careful planning, exaggerated sense of responsibility and a tendency to take time in making decisions.[6]”
And some pretty famous and successful people have been OCD.
“Despite the irrational behaviour, OCD is sometimes associated with above-average intelligence.[4][5] Its sufferers commonly share personality traits such as high attention to detail, avoidance of risk, careful planning, exaggerated sense of responsibility and a tendency to take time in making decisions.[6]”
I think it is reasonable to assume some members of the fraternity will qualify perhaps remembering most of us exhibit some signs in restricted ways. Maybe the capacity to suppress the impulse is a factor too. But I think the tendency to persist with discredited ideas and arguments is a rather telling one. My remarks are likely to be labelled ad hominen by some but in view of my last point (persistence of discredited ideas) I think the issue has to be at least considered.
Stuart,
You raise some excellent points.
Wrong Courts. The Federal Courts deal with Federal law. FDA CDER has not been taken to court over fluoridation, to my knowledge. Takes a great deal of money to fight cities and counties, states and Federal governments in court because they have deep pockets, unlimited tax payer money.
You have mentioned “optimal” fluoride a couple times. Please define your term. Are you talking optimal for water, food, urine, serum or tooth?
Please be more specific.
I’m not looking for any stage of skeletal fluorosis. Opponents often try to make an argument for the 3 stages, when confronted with the rarity of the disorder. But, the fact is that skeletal fluorosis is so rare that it is nearly non-existent. With tens of millions of people having ingested fluoridated water for decades, there would have been epidemics of clearly diagnosable Stage 2 and stage 3 SF were there any problematic overdosing of fluoride occurring. There have not been. Make the argument if you wish, but 68 years of experience says otherwise.
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
Perhaps we should look at the chemistry of NaCl then assuming NaF is more reactive (normally in chemistry F would be more reactive than Cl) The question I have is how does NaF interfere with NaCl biochemistry?
Steve,
Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.
Same as the argument used by the tobacco companies. Unless a person drops dead instantly, then it is safe. I reject that argument.
NRC 2006, “Overall, the committee finds that the predicted bone fluoride concentrations that can be achieved from lifetime exposure to fluoride at 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg bone ash) fall within or exceed the ranges of concentrations that have been associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis.”
All a person needs to do is drink 4 liters of water a day and they will be exposed to the same as 1 liter of 4 mg/L of water and that is assuming normal kidney function and a diet not high in fluoride or swallowing fluoride toothpaste. Simply too many assumptions for my comfort. Certainly confidence is not high that fluoride at 1 ppm or 0.7 ppm is protective of everyone. And remember, there is no caution or warning with fluoridation not to consume too much water.
What some fluoridationists seem to have done, is put tradition and dental caries above other diseases such as skeletal fluorosis. You suggest opponents of fluoridation have three stages of skeletal fluorosis. So before we even start with harm, we need to review some aspects of skeletal fluorosis. A good source is the National Academy of Science 2006 report for the EPA. On page 139 it provides some background.
“Skeletal Fluorosis
Excessive intake of fluoride will manifest itself in a musculoskeletal disease with a high morbidity. This pathology has generally been termed skeletal fluorosis. Four stages of this affliction have been defined, including a preclinical stage and three clinical stages that characterize the severity. The preclinical stage and clinical stage I are composed of two grades of increased skeletal density as judged by radiography, neither of which presents with significant clinical symptoms. In clinical stage II, symptoms characterized by sporadic pain, stiffness of joints, and osteosclerosis of the pelvis and spine are observed. Clinical stage III is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones. Stage III has been termed “crippling” skeletal fluorosis because mobility is significantly affected as a result of excessive calcifications in joints, ligaments, and vertebral bodies. This stage may also be associated with muscle wasting and neurological deficits due to spinal cord compression. The current MCLG is based on induction of crippling skeletal fluorosis (50 Fed. Reg. 20164 [1985]). Because the symptoms associated with stage II skeletal fluorosis could affect mobility and are precursors to more serious mobility problems, the committee judges that stage II is more appropriately characterized as the first stage at which the condition is adverse to health. Thus, this stage of the affliction should also be considered in evaluating any proposed changes in drinking water standards for fluoride.”
Can we agree there are four stages. NRC 2006 agreed stage II is adverse to health. At least that’s what we know as of today. Give us more research, I would suggest stage I will someday be of greater concern. But as of today, we need more research.
NRC 2006 continues on page 140, “In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased (see Chapter 3). It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons (Hanhijarvi et al. 1972) and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis (Juncos
and Donadio 1972; Johnson et al. 1979).”
Apparently some sub populations are at higher risk. NRC 2006 reports only 5 cases of stage III in the USA over a 37 year period. One can argue that the greater good of decay reduction is worth the sacrifice of 5 people and argue those 5 might still have had skeletal fluorosis. Obviously if it were my family, I would not be so cavalier.”
And the section concludes, “The condition (stage II and III) does not appear to have been systematically investigated in recent years in U.S. populations that have had long-term exposures to high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. Thus, research is needed on clinical stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis to clarify the relationship of fluoride
ingestion, fluoride concentration in bone, and clinical symptoms.”
Steve, my confidence level is very low that fluoridation is not contribution to harm of skeletal fluorosis for at least some.
Please provide research to raise my confidence in the safety of fluoridation for everyone.
“LOOKS LIKE we might just have a lower IQ with fluoridation”
Really, how? Do you have any idea what physiological mechanisms are involved?
No?
The Choi study is a meta analysis and as such should be treated as one; perhaps good at giving an overview of of a topic but limited to useless at providing any useful therapeutic conclusions.
But regarding the Choi study.
It’s not just a poor study, it’s utterly useless showing a causitive relationship between low IQ and Fluoride.
And especially in the 0.7ppm range which is where this blog is concerned.
But this study is rolled out and paraded time and again as though it means something – and right on queue, you have done just that.
You said “And proponents say, “poor study.” And I say, Yep, show me your better study. And proponents are silent”
mmm….where to begin.
It is the responsibilty of the person who claims something is so…is so, and why.
If anyone has a sneaking suspicion that the government is adding chemicals to commercial planes to dump on the general population in order to dumb them down then the onus of proof is NOT on me to prove that this is not the case.
and the inevitable “But silence is not proof of safety or harm”
Sigh, yes of course you are right, but don’t forget it is YOUR responsibilty in the first place to show that Fluoridated water influences IQ. You suspect it.
Not me.
I don’t have any responsibility whatsoever to provide ANY studies to show relationship between fluoride and IQ.
Or
fluoride and obesity
fluoride and happiness
fluoride and ADHD
fluoride and commodity prices
fluoride and the existence of the tooth fairy
Any accidental ingestion, for example children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste will prompt the advice from our national (NZ) Poison Centre,
“you have nothing to worry about”.
Dr. Bill and his friends indulging in scare tactics.
NZs principle problem is over indulgence in alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and methamphetamine which causes marked cognitive impairment, temporary or permanent. This is almost certainly reflected in road, workplace accidents and domestic violence, a worldwide problem that betrays the anti F-s as charlatans and Flat Earthers.
Dear Bill, Welcome to New Zealand, a wonderful country that I have visited twice and am very happy to see that their country has embraced water fluoridation as the foundation for a sound dental public health policy.
I feel like this will be a PRATT response to you: “points responded a thousand times”. For you, it doesn’t matter how many times a supporter of fluoridation responds to your accusations about fluoridation.
Let’s look at the NRC 2006 report:
From page 2 of the Executive Summary for the 2006 NRC Report reference on what exactly the 12-member panel of the committee DID NOT review:
“Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge”.
There were 3 avowed opponents to fluoridation on the 12 member panel of the 2006 NRC Study. The three anti’s goal was to get the MCLG for fluoride reduced to 0. They did not succeed.
The report came out in March 2006 that concluded at 4 ppm or above there were only 3 concerns:
1) 10% of kids would get severe dental fluorosis (drops to 0 % at 2 ppm).
Drinking water at a fluoride concentration of 4 ppm or above over a lifetime:
2) Increased risk of skeletal fluorosis
3) Increased risk for bone fractures.
The 3 opponents signed off on the final document, but they continue to do the anti-fluoride circuit claiming that fluoridation at optimal levels causes all kinds of “ugly things”.
On March 22, 2013, Dr. John Doull sent this E-mail to Matt Jacob of the PEW Foundation:
“Dear Matt, In response to your question, I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level. I also feel that there is no reason why Kansas City residents should avoid drinking the fluoridated water that is provided by the community water system. Sincerely, John Doull, M.D., PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee report on Fluoride in Drinking Water.
(for my Kiwi readers, Dr. Doull resides in Kansas City, Kansas, USA)
You said;
“Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.”
Who here has said this?
I know you have been reading, as you respond to some questions so I can’t accuse you of not reading. It appears that have you just have a closed your mind, you just don’t seem to take on board what is being written – exasperating!
This mirrors Kurt’s observation of a PRATT’s.
You appear cogent, educated. You can string sentences together coherently so – why oh why are you doing this?
You said “Same as the argument used by the tobacco companies.”
Forgive me, but you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist…
You said “Unless a person drops dead instantly, then it is safe. I reject that argument.”
Yes, I too reject that argument. It’s stupid and ignorant.
But what is interesting is that you have just ascribed it as an argument proposed and supported by fluoride proponents. Who has said this?
This is a straw man argument, a species of logical fallacy.
Bill, you have changed/altered what others have said/meant before in the past.
Great post Christopher!
“The Philosopher” said the best way to deal with people who maintain contraries is not to. The great Scot Thomas Reid was even less accomodating. “If all else fails resort to irony or even sarcasm”.
I like Jeffersons other famous remark.
“Any ass can kick a barn down but it takes a carpenter to build one!”
Translates very well I think to this debate. Visionary courageous people implement policies to improve human well being and dickheads sabotage them.
I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position on important issues and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.
Both sides are amazed that the other side could believe such radically different things about this fluoridation issue. One way to respond to this is to keep asking questions, keep learning, and keep teaching and hope somehow understanding and maybe agreement can be reached. The other way is to descend into name calling.
I don’t know which side of this debate you are on, Stuart, but it doesn’t matter. It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”. Name calling shows you are not patient enough to stick to rational discussion and either be convinced or convince someone else.
Ian, do you not recognise that posting a comment like the one you have without being able to present a proper reference is very unconvincing. It adds nothing to your argument and actually undermines you credibility.
“Several serious problems. First, some people drink a lot more water than others. Perhaps at 1 liter a day or 2 a day, but what about 11 liters of water a day?”
You appear fixated with how much water people should drink, bordering on the farcical. 11 litres!
Why stop there?…what would happen if someone drank 20 litres. Hey, what about 50!?
Tell me what would happen?
Perhaps water toxicity.
You said “All a person needs to do is drink 4 liters of water a day and they will be exposed to the same as 1 liter of 4 mg/L of water…
You are being a little cavalier with your math aren’t you!…the last time I looked, 0.7 multiplied by 4 was 2.8.
“Simply too many assumptions for my comfort”
I agree, far too many assumptions, not only for my bladder but for any logical conclusions to be made.
Nevertheless, it appears that on one hand you make definitive statements about fluoride and perceived dangers yet you then proceed to hide behind a veil of ignorance by saying;
“In effect, we are discussion and have taken positions on a subject which we really have incomplete evidence”
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
Most telling is near your conclusion when you say;
“In such debate, it is almost better to not have any research because the focus is on the flaws of the other person’s research”
After my fluoride encrusted jaw dropped, it all slowly became clear… like a Chem Trail dissipating on a clear summer’s day.
Be honest Bill, you really don’t know how the scientific method works do you?
I hope this is not too much of a diversion Ken but if you could please indulge me..
Hi jamesrobertdeal,
You said of Stuart,
“It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”. Name calling shows you are not patient enough to stick to rational discussion and either be convinced or convince someone else.”
If you actually read what Stuart wrote, he did not call any ONE a dickhead.
He was referring to a generic group – those saboteurs of people implementing policies that improve human well being…
But while you are here and that you are ready for rational discussion, I would really appreciate it if you could answer the question I posed to you on Monday…
“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
If 68 years of experience and the extreme rarity of skeletal fluorosis in 73% fluoridated United States don’t allay your fears about this disorder, that’s your prerogative. The 2006 NRC only stated risk of severe dental fluorosis and bone fractures as its reason to recommend lowering the primary MCL. They deemed the secondary of 2.0 mg/liter to be adequately protective. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, one third the level deemed safe by the 2006 NRC.
Those facts are certainly ample enough for me to have no concerns about skeletal fluorosis in relation to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.
“Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.”
This is a self-evident strawman.
It’s certainly not a quote from anyone around here.
You made it up all by yourself.
Did it make you feel better?
Shame on you.
Here’s an idea. How about you stick to the real conversation going on around you? Maybe use quotes? Yeah?
Seriously, what is wrong with people like you?
Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use…
No.
This won’t do at all. I’m not a “fluoridationist”.
Nor am I an Evolutionist. Nor a gravityist. Nor a moonlanding-ist.
I’m merely a person that is in sync with the mainstream scientific consensus.
Not much more to it than that.
It’s me and the CDC. Me and NASA. Me and the NIH. Me and the CSIRO etc,etc,etc.
Not just on fluoride, though. Oh no..
On all sorts of things.
You have a problem with my views on fluoride?
Don’t waste your time on the internet.
Enter the scientific arena. Get some work done. Take it up with the global scientific community. Once you win them over, come back and say “hi”.
Otherwise, shut your pie-hole.
It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”.
This is what it took to for you to worm your way out of the woodwork and make a comment? How sad. For weeks now, you had a target-rich environment of cranks and loons making all sorts of deperately stupid arguments linking to no-name science denier blogs…and you decide to add your two cents worth bleating about rude names.
(..awkward silence…)
Sad.
Get a life.
I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position on important issues and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.
Let’s test that, shall we?
“I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position that the moon landings never happened and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.
Both sides (me and my friends on the internet versus NASA and every single scientifc community on the planet) are amazed that the other side could believe such radically different things about the Apollo missions. One way to respond to this is to keep asking questions, keep learning, and keep teaching and hope somehow understanding and maybe agreement can be reached. The other way is to descend into name calling.”
No. That’s just stupid.
I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s just a simple observation.
People living in the 21st century that don’t believe that the moon landings happened are stupid.
We’re just not dealing with the sharpest pencils in the box here.
Dickheads?
Sure. You have to be a dickhead to argue no matter what to support such an untenable position. The arguments that science deniers make are dishonest. They are fallacious. It’s endless quote-mining and anomoly hunting and shifting the burden of proof and an hominem and trolling and conspiracy thinking.
Even (and I kid you not), even when it’s pointed out to them again and again and again that the way they are going about things is fallacious.
When they persist, that makes them dickheads.
Indeed, I’d argue that there’s no more honest description.
Science deniers should not be given any faux respect.
If your position is “X” and that paricular “X” stands in the face of every single relevent scientific community on the planet then it’s one of two things.
Either A:
You’re in line for a Nobel Prize
or B:
You are an idiot that has great difficulty embracing reality and you need to spend a little less time embracing kooky konspiracy theories.
How do you tell the difference, you may ask?
Easy.
Methodology. Methodology. Methodology.
Thanks for your reply Bill
Sorry Ken its just a hypothesis it just seems fair to ask about biochemical pathways given that this is part of the debate, if we are to fully understand how F interacts in the human body we need to understand how it is metabolised not just what it does for teeth – humans are inquisitive especially scientists
Next question for anybody in the studies with high F consumption what is the chemical composition, mix NaF, CaF2, other soluble F or are we assuming that all F is available for absorption???
Regarding water consumption l recommend a look at (or others just use Dr Google) http://waterintakecalculator.com/ http://www.ehow.com/how_5868404_calculate-water-consumption-needs.html
You’ll be amazed how much water people need especially in a hot climate and if consider a professional sports person, a labourer who works outside all day I can see how a person could easily get to 8+litres a day
I can think of quiet a few people who would exercise more than this in their normal manual jobs
Ian, where is your inquisitiveness about the chlorine you ingest with every swallow of water?
Consuming 8 liters of water per day would be excessive by any standards. Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior. Any who engage in this behavior must take responsibility themselves to assure that they are not ingesting an excessive amount of chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, or any other water additives if they are concerned with this.
Even your excessive 8 liter per day water will still fall short of the IOM upper level, 10 mg, before adverse effects, however. Eight liters of fluoridated water per day would only mean a total daily intake of 7.5 mg fluoride from all sources.
Sincere folks with a genuine desire in subjecting claims that are paraded as scientific claims frequently don’t realise they (and the debate) are being “gamed”. The “game” is parading posturing that is really personal narcism, right wing Libertarianism parading as liberalism, narrow vested financial interests, free market politics and the denial of cooperative strategies of a non zero sum kind aimed at the general welfare. It is frequently accompanied with accusations in some countries with cries of “nanny state” or “socialism”. Among people who should know better this is nothing to do with an honest misunderstanding of the way things have to be, it is a deliberate ploy to encourage a system, a world view that delivers the welfare that belongs to everyone, to an elite arrogant selfish few. It’s proponents should not be treated politely, they should be given no quarter. Their currency is deliberate persistent misinformation. Their strategy is discernible in Big Tobacco, Climate Change denial and now anti fluoridation. That is why their most outrageous claims are situated in the on-line equivalent of the “gutter press” as I discovered above.
Please stop the personal attacks and stick to the subject. Demeaning comments are not productive. Insinuating that I can’t think and am stupid is not scientific or on topic.
You suggest you (I presume you mean fluoridationists) have no responsibility to ensure fluoridation is safe or provide any research on the safety of fluoridation for the brain. Then who has responsibility? Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?
Public Health professionals and proponents have the responsibility to ensure the use of police powers to give everyone fluoride is not causing harm. They keep claiming safety and expect the patient to provide the research. That is why the FDA CDER was set up by Congress so the manufacturer, not the patient or public, is responsible for claims made, manufacturing, label, branding, etc. The person doing the action has the responsibility for their actions.
Speak up. Do all fluoridationists agree they have no responsibility for scientific evidence on the safety of fluoride to the brain?
Steve, you say the NRC 2006 “They deemed the secondary of 2.0 mg/liter to be adequately protective. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, one third the level deemed safe by the 2006 NRC.”
Ian,
Your question on chemicals is certainly appropriate. I thought you were asking about other chemicals than fluoride.
The NRC 2006 report and earlier reports deal somewhat with absorption. Medications with fluoride usually do not contribute much fluoride, an estimated 10% of the fluoride stays in the body.
And your comments on the amount of water consumed is hitting at part of my concerns as a nutritionist for total exposure and dentist as dosage.
Mean, average, and median are misleading when we are trying to make the chemical safe for everyone. If we are going to make it safe for 90% or 95% of the public, then we need to say so.
If a person drinks a great deal of water and also takes fluoride medications and swallows toothpaste and drinks tea or wine with higher concentrations of fluoride, those people are at higher risk.
Would you please provide a reference either law or published public health advisory or research or some other document to support your statement,
“Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior. Any who engage in this behavior must take responsibility themselves to assure that they are not ingesting an excessive amount of chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, or any other water additives if they are concerned with this.”
I would disagree. You have suggested that some people drink too much water (8 L/d) and they need to take responsibility for their excessive behavior.
What would your advice be to those people who feel they need more water?
What is the public health position on how much water is safe and how much drinking water is excessive behavior?
Are there exceptions for people like diabetics or lactating mothers or soldiers or laborers? My memory is the army sent out 3 gallons of drinking water for each soldier each day in Iraq. Would you consider the military excessive behavior for drinking water?
“The key problem is that there is a lack of good quality evidence of both effectiveness and harm. This is a point consistently raised in reviews of water fluoridation (McDonagh et al. 2000, NRC 2006, NHMRC 2007, SCHER 2011).”
“Evidence-based public health presents particular problems relating to the nature of the evidence and how this is applied in practice (Dobrow et al. 2004, Petticrew et al. 2004) . . . Medicine focuses on the individual patient. . . public health is not focused on the individual but on populations, and, by its very nature, is a more political process than medicine as it deals with social processes. . . . It is because of the population-wide application of public health interventions that Skarabanek (1994) argued that the link between evidence and public health interventions should be stronger than that for other forms of medical interventions because public health deals with people who are not ‘ill’ nor have they approached a health care practitioner asking for medical assistance.”
The scientific evidence for fluoridation should be stronger. Please provide the “stronger” scientific evidence. Several prospective randomized controlled trials would help. But there is not one.
The last class of my public health master’s degree, the instructor said, “you must promote and do everything your superior tells you to do regardless of the science.” I raised my hand and asked, “does that mean if my boss tells me to promote smoking tobacco I have to promote tobacco smoking?” My instructor paused, considered, and then said, “Yes.”
Holtgrave published an article, “Public Health Errors: Costing Lives, Millions at a Time,” J Pub Health Man & Prac. May/June 2010, Vol 16 Issue 3 p. 211-215 And see Commentary in that Issue by De Ville Novick “Commentary: Toward a Taxonomy of Public Health Error”
Whereas a single medical error may cost one or more lives, a public health error may cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Yet public health policy is too often without external scientific evidence based review, open dialogue with stake holders’ input, or patient freedom. In the case of fluoridation, the focus is to help the poor, and ironically it is the poor who can least afford the loss of IQ and who are most harmed.
Holtgrave divides public health errors into three types of situations, errors of deliberate commission such as contrary to standards, practices, laws or ethical norms (such as fluoridation); willful omission such as not providing action (label, branding, informed consent for treatments like fluoridation); and complacency such as paying insufficient attention to a disease (or treatment of the disease without approved drug).
Holtgrave suggests, “A common feature in those three categories of errors is an intent to do harm, or at least the lack of caring about fully discharging one’s public health duty to serve the public good.” Holtgrave argues, “that policy makers can indeed commit “errors” and should be held accountable for said errors if the policy makers know that the action they are taking is demonstrably harmful (relative to another policy option) and they have the financial, legal, and human resources to avoid implementing the relatively harmful policy.”
I had a public health dentist tell me, “I don’t care about science. I do whatever I want until a judge tells me otherwise.”
My point is, tradition is very hard to change and my public health profession has really no oversight or scientific training. The CDC dental division is made up to a great degree with military dentists who are accustomed to taking orders and following them. They take their marching orders on fluoridation from the ADA.
No doctor could ethically force the ingestion of even an approved drug (let alone an unapproved drug) on competent adults for a non-contagious non-life threatening disease, without ethical consent from each individual, medicating everyone in an attempt to medicate children while their teeth are developing, with an uncontrolled dosage, based on highly disputed cherry picked low quality scientific evidence, and with the drug readily available off the shelf providing freedom of choice (toothpaste) as an alternative. If a doctor did what public water providers are doing, they would lose their license to practice medicine.
Science is not stagnant, is not set in stone, and is constantly being challenged and changing. History has sometimes not been kind to scientists and public health professionals who have used unapproved drugs for treatments on people without their consent (Nuremberg Trials) or with held treatment or even the information, public health education, of potential treatment from cohorts (Tuskegee). Public water providers must actively educate the public towards health rather than medicate the public towards “health.”
Holtgrave reminds us that, “in public health there is not an analogue to the Hippocratic Oath from medicine (“first of all, do no harm”).” In public health, the standards of performance are ambiguous and the decision makers less clearly identifiable, more distal and more numerous than in clinical medicine. The attitude and culture of the public health profession is omniscient, omnipresent and potestas imperium.
Issues of ethics emerge with value conflicts. Some people value teeth more than brains and have gained enough potestas imperium control to force everyone into submission to their value of mass medication rather than mass education. Even if the masses voted for an illegal act, such as segregation of schools, the vote does not make the act legal. When there are value conflicts, public water providers must provide freedom of choice, do no harm, and obey the law.
The Czech Republic provides freedom for individual choice and does not fluoridate public water. Even without fluoridated water Oganessian (2011) has raised concerns for excess fluoride ingestion from other sources and summarized key considerations for preschool children:
• “During the period when the enamel of permanent teeth is maturing it is vulnerable even to small over-doses of fluoride.”
• “One of the main issues of dental public health is to minimize the risk of fluoride overdose by the fluoride and diet counseling both in individual and community levels.”
• “There is also a bottled table mineral water with a fluoride content exceeding 0.7 ppm, which must be obligatorily labeled as “not suitable for children up to 7 years.”
• “As to other sources of fluorides, there is no fluoridation of drinking water in the Czech Republic, fluoridated toothpastes for children are available country-wide and fluoride tablets are administered rarely.”
• “Children aged 4 to 5 years accidentally swallow 30 to 40% of the tooth paste when cleaning teeth.”
It is time for public health officials and dentists to seriously and calmly review their positions on fluoride ingestion.
The CDC dental division is made up to a great degree with military dentists who are accustomed to taking orders and following them. They take their marching orders on fluoridation from the ADA.
Review the scientific evidence they provide for their position.
The Surgeon General has been clear more than once that they do not determine the safety or efficacy for the substances they recommend. They leave that to the FDA CDER.
Bill you forgot to mention that fluoridated salt is used in the Czech republic
“Salt fluoridation was implemented in the Czech and the Slovak Republics in the mid-nineties. The market share of the
fluoridated domestic salt appears to have reached 35% in the
Czech Republic; it became eventually part of a preventive
strategy comprising school-based dental health education
including topical fluoride.” Edited by THOMASM. MARTHALER
1
and GEORGEW. POLLAK
2
1
Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology
and Cariology, Center for Dentistry, University of Zurich
2
Weinbergstrasse 31, CH-8006 Zurich
Bill what I was trying to get to is how NaCl in the body (not in added salt although this might also have other implications) is migrated between cells, (cell chemistry) but in particular in kidney function..ie as is more reactive does NaF exchange alter the bio activity of NaCl
Also NaF also adds more Na to the diet which for many in western society is already high (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/sodium/)
Both are alkaline metal halogens
Review the scientific evidence they provide for their position.
Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.
Are you saying that the Royal Society do indeed review the scientific evidence when they make a statement on fluoridation or do you think they just get “marching orders” from someone or some organsation as the CDC do?
Dear Bill,
Hola from Portland, again. Perhaps I missed some earth shattering new, but the last legal case involving a fluoridation suit was judge in favor of the defendant, the Metro Water District of Southern California. (August 9, 2011)
References:
Filing:
Closer to our home, just north in Washington State, you and Mr. Deal are much more familiar with this ruling. Basically, no court of last resort in the United States has ever ruled that fluoridation is forced medication or a drug.
In 2011 Port Angeles, WA and Forks, WA were sued for the umteenth time by opponents to fluoridation like you and Mr. Deal. Here was the final ruling.
Jefferson County Superior Court Judge Craddock Verser dismissed the case Friday on the grounds that fluoride cannot be considered a prescription drug when used in a public water supply.
The two cities, in their motion to dismiss the case, said that designation does not apply to their use of fluoride because the FDA does not regulate public drinking water.
He wrote that the plaintiffs would have to meet two criteria to prove their case: that fluoride is a prescription drug under federal law and that it is listed in the 2009 edition of the Drug Topics Red Book.
“Because the FDA does not regulate public drinking water or drinking water additives, it is impossible for plaintiffs to prove that the first requirement for being a [prescription drug] under Washington law is met,” he said.
I am disappointed that you have inferred that I think you are stupid, I’m sure you can’t read my mind. My posts, yes…but my mind?
My comments are confined ONLY to issues that you comment on or about – which is why I am careful to quote what you actually say and ask you questions when I am unsure of what you mean.
If you extrapolate this to your persona as a whole then I cannot help this, this is your error. I can’t apologise for what I haven’t done.
While we are on the subject, do you have any specific’s you want to discuss or do you just want to blanket me with your inaccurate moral opprobrium?
But here’s another observation.
You often ignore questions
You fabricate statements not said by others (straw men)
and you routinely get things wrong
I don’t want to get in a silly tit for tat but can you please be accurate with what you say?
“Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?”
So much hate
So much rhetoric
So much inaccuracy
So much ideology
So little science
Steve asked Ian, where is your inquisitiveness about the chlorine you ingest with every swallow of water?
we are in a F debate however you do raise a valid point at Cl is a halogen just like fluoride although not as reactive, however then you would also raise the issue of bromine & Iodine I would suspect total halogen/halide intake may possibly be relevant but I have not seen any mention in this discussion if you have a link I would be interested
Steve Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior.
I guess that would mean a professional sports person would be at risk as I would agree that they have excessive behavior you know training many hours daily I would still expect any health body would certainly be wise enough to take 99.9+% of populations behaviours into account
It’s Bill and his mates who don’t have the evidence. That’s why they dwell on questionable papers and the minutiae of never ending pompous prevarication. Oh and Chris – they don’t forget crucial details, they suppress them.
Review the scientific evidence they provide for their position.
“Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society…”
Ah, but what if someone on Twitter says they’re wrong?
You may have your fancy-smancy scientists and your NASA and your Royal Society on the one hand and all the work they do but then there’s…some guy with a blog.
It’s an impossible choice.
Besides, the blog has some pictures. Maybe even a graph.
I already have. Above. But you didn’t read it. That too is evidence, evidence of your complete insincerity. Your not a scientist. You a contrarian making a living on the lecture circuit preaching to the converted and selling books and pamphlets. Just like your mates at Discovery Institute.
Bill asks: “Please provide a page for your reference”
Certainly, Bill.
On page 2 of the 2006 NRC Report:
“On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate
independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of
2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect
children and others from adverse health effects. ”
Also on page 2:
“After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted
since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the
present MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered. Exposure at the
MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, a condition that is associated with enamel loss and pitting. In addition, the
majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG is not likely to be pro-
tective against bone fractures. ”
The Committee was charged with evaluating the adequacy of the primary and secondary MCLs to be protective of the public. The Committee made a recommendation to lower the primary. It made no recommendation to lower the secondary. Thus, it deemed the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm to be adequately protective of the public. Had it not, it would have recommended lowering, as it did for the primary.
Note that the EPA MCL, MCLG, and SMCL pertain to naturally occurring fluoride and any fluoride contamination through pollution. These 2 ppm and 4 ppm limits are limits on naturally occurring fluoride and pollution. They are not a green light to add fluoride up to 2 ppm and 4 ppm.
The 2006 NRC Report at page xiii clarifies this, saying:
“In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 4 mg/L and a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water. These exposure values are not recommendations for the artificial fluoridation of drinking water, but are guidelines for areas in the United States that are contaminated or have high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride.”
Naturally occurring calcium fluoride is not a good thing to drink, but it only dissolves up to 8 ppm, and it comes with its own buffering calcium. It is not immediately poisonous like the synthetic fluorides, which contain no buffering calcium or magnesium. It is a gross error to say that artificial fluoridation is just the adjusting of naturally occurring fluoride. This is because the artificial fluorides come with no calcium to buffer them, and they are fully soluble in water. Also the silicofluorides contain lead and leach lead from pipes, something that calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride do not do. Also they contain arsenic, cadmium mercury, lead, and thallium in small amounts.
Next note that the EPA told the NRC not to review fluoride added to drinking water. EPA administrators did not want to know anything bad about fluoridation. EPA told HHS not to discuss artificial water fluoridation in the 2006 NRC Report. The SDWA requires that the EPA get outside review every five years. So in 2003 EPA commissioned the NRC to conduct a very limited evaluation of fluoridation policies.
The EPA twists what NRC says to imply that NRC endorses artificial water fluoridation. The EPA says in its New Fluoride Risk Assessment:
“The NRC 2006 report does not question the beneficial effects for fluoride at levels practiced for fluoridation programs.”
This is a bad faith argument, because the EPA told the NRC not to cover fluoridation programs. The NRC explains:
“Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge. 2006 NRC 1-2.”
On the one hand, EPA, CDC, and HHS were endorsing continued water fluoridation. On the other hand, EPA was telling NRC not to research the subject. And on the other hand the EPA was using NRC’s reduced coverage of water fluoridation in the 2006 NRC Report to imply that the NRC was not critical of water fluoridation.
Either the EPA of the FDA could ban fluoridation. Only the FDA can authorize fluoridation because it is intended to affect health and so meets the federal definition of a drug – in spite of what our stupid Washington Supreme Court had to say.
But the EPA cannot require fluoridation due to direct language in the Safe Drinking Water act. The SDWA specifically prohibits EPA from passing any regulation requiring the addition of any chemical to drinking water for medical purposes. See 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)[3]:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”
So EPA instead just recommends fluoridation and passes the buck to NSF to declare consumption of industrial fluorides to be safe. But before EPA administrators passed the buck to NSF, the EPA scientists wrote the guidelines for NSF, which say that 20 tox studies are to be done. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-60-excerpts2.pdf. They are not being done. State laws allow fluoridation only if fluoridation materials “comply” with NSF 60. Because NSF is not doing the tox studies, the materials do not “comply”, and fluoridation with synthetic fluoride is illegal. Another law is ignored.
Bill, my comment on excessive behavior with public health initiatives is my opinion. Readers may take that any way they choose.
Yes, I consider consumption of 3 gallons (11 liters) per day water during war maneuvers to be excessive. You don’t? The term “excessive” is not a judgement as to whether the behavior is positive or negative. Too, you assume that the 3 gallons you state is provided per day to these military personnel is fluoridated. Even if it is, this still only results in 10.26 mg total daily fluoride intake for even the most most extreme of scenarios, and this is only for a short term. The upper limit is chronic average intake of 10 mg. This is clear evidence of the broad range of safety which exists between the optimal level and the upper limit.
Medically compromised individuals and lactating mothers must be attuned to all substances they consume, in accordance with the recommendations of their healthcare providers. This is certainly not limited to fluoride intake.
Ian, the daily upper limit is the average, chronic intake of fluoride. The United States population is 317 million. Even the relatively few numbers of “professional sports persons” for whom you express concern, could consume 2-3 gallons of water per day and be within that upper limit.
I heard once on a discussion on National Radio NZ that the recommended quantity of water, 7 litres was aid representation by bottled water companies. The 7 litres (or whatever the quantity was) was in fact total water needs including water in food, a figure used by US military food planners during second world war. Someone might find the original story and verify that. Anyway the amount became an urban legend encouraging people to swig water all day out of fashionable drink bottles. I think many people used filtered water and I would say the consumption has been quite exaggerated. But that would need verifying. If the amount has been overstated then that would erode the force of the concerns regarding massive water ingestion. Whatever the precise figure I would think excessive water uptake is highly improbable.
You bring up an interesting point with fluoridated salt. France has fluoridated salt and according to a French friend, none of the salt is used in commercial foods and the use is declining.
An obvious advantage to fluoridated salt is freedom of choice.
A far better form of dispensing is to have a person swallow a baby pea size of tooth paste which has a quarter mg of fluoride. Of course the FDA warns not to swallow that much. But fluoride toothpaste is readily available, cheaper than fluoridated water and gives people freedom of choice.
I once watched a documentary on the Six Day war. Israeli soldiers were rationed about 11 (12?) litres of water a day for optimal fighting performance.
In the desert.
Fighting, mind you.
(Granted it’s only a documentary and also you have to rely on my memory.)
The point is that you could drink a lot of water until your bladder screamed for mercy.
Yet fluoridation is not going to be a problem.
Fluoride in tap water is in minute quantities. If you want to do damage to yourself from the fluoride in the water then it’s going to be a superhuman task.For a superhuman bladder.
Anti-fluoridationists are simply taking the piss.
Richard,
You said, “Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.”
I have several serious problems with your comment.
First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both dentistry and public health.
Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.
My request is for you to provide the Royal Societies current scientific review of fluoridation.
On the subject of excessive water consumption last year 2012 an Invercargill woman died from ingesting excessive coke drink, up to 10 litres per day. Autopsy reported cardiac arrhythmia from excessive sodium and caffein. Invercargill fluoridated it’s water supply. No mention of fluoride in the autopsy reported.
Your post quoted me saying:
“Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?”
Christopher, your answer has nothing to do with science or supporting your position but attacking me when you said,
“So much hate
So much rhetoric
So much inaccuracy
So much ideology
So little science”
Instead of trying to put e down as stupid, provide your position and science.
The Congress of the United States of America has charged the FDA CDER with regulation of substances intended to prevent disease. The FDA CDER requires the manufacturer to gain NDA. I posted that earlier.
In contrast, you say it is not you, promoters, in effect the manufacturer’s and promoter’s responsibility to provide the science.
Christopher, my question to you is,
In your opinion, if not the manufacturer of the product, then who’s responsibility is it to ensure the product is safe and effective? Who has jurisdiction? Please provide your evidence without attacking me personally.
“I have several serious problems with your comment.
First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both NASA, the Russian Space Agency and the European Space Agency.
Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.
My request is for you to provide the Royal Societies current scientific review of the moon landings.”
Happy, happy me.
🙂
You say I’m setting up straw men. Well, provide scientific evidence to support your arguments rather than attacking me personally.
Or what?
More strawmen?
Shame on you. Even if you were being attacked personally, it doesn’t justify you creating strawmen.
Grow up.
What can be more basic than mother’s milk? In most samples, no detectible fluoride. Mean of 0.004 ppm in non fluoridated areas, and less than 0.01 ppm in fluoridated areas. Similar to saliva and blood serum.
Formula made with fluoridated water provides the infant with 100 to 250 times more fluoride than mother’s milk.
Please provide your scientific evidence that infants are safe with that amount of fluoride and second, would you consider mother’s milk defective?
But fluoride toothpaste is readily available, cheaper than fluoridated water and gives people freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice.
Who could argue against freedom of choice?
You are it’s fearless defender.
Hmm.
You want people to be able to “make a choice”.
No doubt you want people to “know what the facts are”, right?
Of course you do.
It’s an “open question”.
There are “differing points of view”.
Shouldn’t the American people be allowed to “come to their own conclusion”?
Hmm.
Sounds familiar somehow.
War on Tobacco science, war on global warming science
You provided your evidence and I find your approach to be very professional. Thank you.
I understand how you came to the conclusion that the NRC found the SMCL of 2mg/L of fluoride was protective. We agree the NRC said MCLG of 4mg/L was not protective. However, we disagree with the assumption that if NRC found MCLG not protective then they found 2 mg/L was protective. Their silence on SMCL should not be taken as evidence of safety. They requested a new DRA which has been done and you may have read it. Almost 8 years later and the EPA has still not come up with a new MCLG. The new MCLG maybe lower than 2 mg/L. A secondary might be less than 0.7 mg/L. As yet, we don’t know.
In your next response, you find 3 gallons of water excessive. How much water is safe and how much water is excessive. Please provide a number and citation.
Second, you suggest 10 mg/day of fluoride is safe. Please provide your reference and a link if possible to the scientific evidence to support that dosage. What is the date that number was determined? What is the serum and urine fluoride concentration ranges that fluoride dosage produces? And what is the serum fluoride concentration for adverse effects found in the literature? CDC says serum fluoride should be less than 0.02 mg/L. Research is now showing adverse effects at >0.02 mg/L. First those questions and then we can go into the research on optimal and safe serum fluoride concentration.
you said above, “Medically compromised individuals and lactating mothers must be attuned to all substances they consume, in accordance with the recommendations of their healthcare providers. This is certainly not limited to fluoride intake.”
To some degree, I am with you that individuals must be attuned to what they consume. However, at a minimum, when public health interventions may harm subpopulations, we should be even more cautious, judicious, with labels and health education to keep them “attuned.”
As a dentist, I promoted fluoridation and fluoride supplements for about 25 years. Was I attuned? No. To expect mother’s with jobs, toddlers, work, lack of sleep, without transportation and inadequate money to be attuned to complex issues like fluoridation is simply asking too much.
At a minimum, health education must include cautions not to use public water for making infant formula.
First, you (and all of us) tend to look at the mean or median. So my question is, what percentage of the population do you want to protect for safety? The other way to say it, “what percentage of the public can be harmed and fluoridation still be an acceptable public health intervention?”
Second, “What filters remove fluoride from water?” Many are using filters, but which ones remove fluoride?
Swallowing a “baby pea size of toothpaste” does not expose the teeth to a low concentration of fluoride during the day as does fluoridated water. A recommendation for people to swallow a “pea size” of toothpaste with a 1200-1500 times the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water, does not seem to be a responsible alternative to consuming water with a careful dilution of 0.7 ppm fluoride. At less than $1 per person per day for fluoridation, the toothpaste option would certainly not be more cost efficient.
Domestic salt both with added fluoride (at 250 ppm) and without fluoride has been on the market since 1986. It was recommended to avoid the consumption of fluoridated salt if the local drinking water contained more than 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre. The legislation has never been modified since, except for a few developments such as the permission given to school canteens in 1993 to use fluoridated salt, provided canteen managers made sure that the drinking water contained no more than 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre. Epidemiological surveys about fluoridated salt in France are few, but they point in the same direction: decrease of DMFT and DMFS values, evident for the period 1986-1993 but minimal from 1993 to 1998. In 1999 and 2002, Service de Santé Publique, U.F.R. d’Odontologie, Université de Montpellier I, France. paul.tramini@wanadoo.fr
Human breast milk contains an insufficient amount of iron for proper development of infants 6 mos and older. Using the content of breast milk to justify opposition to a public health initiative which provides dental decay prevention is a poor argument.
“Breast milk contains very little iron (~0.35 mg/liter). The Institute of Medicine recommends that infants 6-12 months old get 11 mg of iron per day [1]. By this age, most babies’ iron stores have been depleted, so this iron needs to come from complementary foods, in addition to breast milk or formula. If you try to meet your infant’s iron requirement on breast milk alone, she would have to consume between 4 and 13 liters of breast milk per day, depending on your baby’s efficiency of iron absorption from breast milk (estimates range from 15-50% absorption). Most exclusively breastfed babies don’t consume much more than 1 liter of milk per day.”
—–Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. 2003, National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.
As far as your demand for scientific proof that fluoride at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not. There is no valid evidence that fluoridation causes any adverse effects for infants, mild dental fluorosis notwithstanding.
I stand by my assertion that by recommending no change in the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, the 2006 NRC deemed that level to be adequately protective of the public, given that this was its charge.
As I have said before Bill Baby Formula in NZ has to be fluoride free,by law, so that cuts down the fluoride intake for infants
And it has been proved that the fluoride ‘hit’ from toothpaste only lasts an hour or two at most, so what treatment do the teeth get between brushing, and then that raises the question ,How many people in the demo-graph that need it most, actually brush once a day or even at all. I know that there are families in the north of N.Z that dont have a toothbrush each, and dental hygiene is not top of the shopping list, And you can buy coke for a buck a litre on special
Readers are free to assess for themselves whether or not a consumption of 3 gallons of water per day is excessive. Your question was whether I consider it to be. Again, I do.
The 10 mg upper limit is that which has been established by the Institute of Medicine. Given 68 years of history of water fluoridation with no proven adverse effects, including the extreme rarity of skeletal fluorosis, there is no valid evidence that this determination of upper level is faulty.
Bill: “At a minimum, health education must include cautions not to use public water for making infant formula.”
The CDC and the ADA have both cautioned that for those parents who are concerned with the risk of mild dental fluorosis, the suggestion is to use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most, if not all, of which are manufactured using low fluoride content water.
Again, public health initiatives cannot account for all excesses and all contingencies. Lactating mothers who do not accord a top priority to the substances they ingest, in the best interest of the proper development of their infants, are not a valid reason to deprive an entire population the benefit of water fluoridation.
Regarding toothpaste. I give that as an alternative which is less than $1/day. About 150 pea size amounts in the small Crest fluoride toothpaste tube I used to give to patients. That tube does not cost you $150 to give to your patients. And a large tube has much more and costs about 1% of fluoridated water. And ethics. Don’t forget ethics with freedom of choice.
Of course the quarter mg is not to be swallowed according to the FDA CDER.
Question: Why are you opposed to seeking FDA CDER approval for fluoridation? They have the experts and it would save a great deal of controversy.
And remember, about half of americans drink bottled water.
And remember, about 3 out of 4 have fluoridated water.
So if you really want to give everyone fluoride, then other methods of dispensing would certainly be more cost effective and greater ethics.
You suggest exclusive use of mother’s milk after six months of age lacks sufficient iron. OK. I quit breast feeding long ago, at least getting any milk.
Oregon has the highest rate of breast feeding in any state. And we have 3/4 of infants getting some or all formula and half getting all food from formula.
It is the responsibility of public health agencies to provide evidence of safety for infants. Certainly it is not the infant’s responsibility to provide you with evidence fluoridated water is not safe.
I don’t understand your logic. Do you really think infants must provide you with research?
The manufacturer has the legal responsibility to ensure their product is safe and effective with proper label, branding, marketing, manufacturing,etc. Not the consumer.
Steve,
As you can tell, I do not blindly believe and have blind trust in public health so called experts who claim things are safe and effective. Too many areas in our profession of dentistry and public health which are no longer considered safe. Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.
First consider the range of total fluoride exposure for a human. We can’t just consider one source, water.
Second, consider each person’s ability to excrete excess. Not all kidneys work the same and diet makes a difference in absorption, ie calcium in the diet.
Third, the best method of evaluating fluoride exposure is with blood serum fluoride concentration. Not an expensive test and should be done regularly.
Fourth, the best studies include serum and urine fluoride concentrations from cohorts.
We know adverse effects happen at very low serum fluoride concentrations, CDC says <0.02 mg/L Some studies are now showing adverse effects even lower. Controls in some studies are at 0.02 mg/L.
It would be reasonable for promoters of fluoridation to do a prospective randomized controlled trial measuring serum fluoride concentrations as the control. At least water districts should start to randomly measure serum fluoride concentrations in their patients.
Sorry Steve. I think that’s a typo.
You mean “per year” correct?
As far as your demand for scientific proof that fluoride at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.
Let’s test that shall we?
We shall.
“As far as your demand for scientific proof that chlorine at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.”
Hmm. Seems to work nicely.
How about we apply it to something else?
“As far as your demand for scientific proof that “x” is safe, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.”
Yep. It works. Fluoride in tap water has been around since McCarthy.
All the anti-flouride campaigners have to show for it are some very dodgy websites written in Comic Sans and a tiny band of kooks rehashing John Birch Society Newsletters.
No actual science.
Philosophically probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent. That still does not stop us from being very effective in using that imperfect knowledge. It is not in the nature of humans to sop it on their buts and do nothing just because they might be wrong.
As you say we usually don’t know what we a wrong about – however, we can develop levels of confidence sufficient to use what we know. And it is really naive to suggest we do nothing just in case we might be wrong.
Again, swallowing a pea sized dolluo of toothpaste does not provide the consistent exposure of the teeth to a low concentration of fluoridation all during the day. Fluoridation costs less than $1 per person per YEAR. According to your figures, your alternative is 365 X the cost of fluoridation, with far less benefit.
There is no requirement nor is there any need for FDA approval of optimal level fluoride added to water. It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which has existed in water since the beginning of time. Water often has in excess of the optimal level of fluoride “naturally”. It is ludicrous to demand rigid FDA testing of this mineral. Thus is the reason it is under the control of the EPA and not the FDA. Why are you not demanding FDA CDER testing of chlorine additives to water?
I provided a reference for iron requirements of infants in my previous comment. The point is that your use of fluoride content of human breast milk as an argument against fluoridation has no validity. Human breast milk is deficient in iron. Are we to assume that anemia of developing children is what nature intended, and thus withhold iron supplementation?
Your are demanding proof of a negative, i.e. “I think there could be a problem, therefore prove that there isn’t”. This would be an endless process and is invalid. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effects of fluoridation with infants. It is impossible to prove every conceivable, unsubstantiated contingency that anyone, anywhere can put forth. Valid evidence that a problem exists must be provided before credibly demanding proof that it does not.
The cautions about powdered infant formula, fluoridated water , and mild dental fluorosis have been made by the CDC and the ADA. If you feel these cautions have not been made sufficiently known to the populace, that is a reason to admonish powdered formula manufacturers to better do their job, not a reason to deprive an entire population the benefit of the public health initiative of water fluoridation.
Nothing wrong with questioning public health or any other authority. The problem with most fluoridation opponents is that in the place of knowledgeable, recognized authoritative sources of information on fluoridation, they substitute the filtered and edited information of “fluoridealert.org” and other antifluoridationist websites maintained by personnel unqualified to properly assess validity of scientific information. Intelligent people should not blindly follow anyone, but they should rely upon reliable, accurate, and primary sources of information on which to base their opinions.
The EPA primary and secondary MCLs are maximum allowable levels of fluoride in public water systems. It makes no difference what the source of the fluoride. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. I am aware of no entities that seek to add fluoride up to 4 ppm because the EPA MCL is at that level.
Yes, your “Scientific Consultant” Sauerhaber attempts to make the argument about “buffering” of CaF, but it is a moot point. First, there is no such thing as “artificial fluoride”. Fluoride ions are identical regardless of whether they are released by CaF or HFA. You, yourself, have stated here that CAF dissolves as much as 8 ppm. Only enough HFA is added to systems which will increase the concentration of fluoride ions to 0.7 ppm. Whether those fluoride ions come from the dissolved CaF, from NaF, or from HFA makes no difference. They are identical.
I’ve already addressed your attempted argument about lead in answer to your comment in another section. Urbansky and Schock put that issue to rest.
Your opinions on what you think the EPA “twists”, does or does not do, your personal opinion that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a “drug”, and that our “Washington Supreme Court” is “stupid” because it won’t rule the way you want……are all irrelevant, as are your cites to your own, biased website. I’ve already addressed, with references, your erroneous argument that NSF Standard 60 requirements are not being met. You are certainly free to argue that in court if you choose, but I don’t much like your chances there.
The SDWA prohibits federal mandating of fluoridation. It does not prohibit state or local mandates. State and local are the levels at which fluoridation decisions are made, not at the federal level.
I’m just curious….are these arguments those that you would seriously attempt to make in court?
Bill “Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.”
I have several serious problems with your comment.
First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both dentistry and public health.
Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.
I didn’t say anything about trusting dead scientists on this issue. I thought it obvious why I supplied the names of some illustrious members of the Royal Society.
It was illustrative of the caliber of the membership of the Society.
Arguably, in fact strongly arguably, the finest scientific minds on planet Earth. Not just anybody is admitted to the Royal Society. And to be a Fellow you have to have achieved something. Something significant.
Spokespeople for The Royal Society are, I assume, fully cognisant with its standing and wouldn’t just issue any old opinion on behalf of the society. They’d take any such task seriously. Truly. They’d use sources that can be trusted to provide the best possible information. The same applies for the Surgeon General in the USA when that office issues a position statement.
In NZ we have the Royal Society of New Zealand, established in the 19th Century, modeled on and linked to The Royal Society (London), the UK’s national academy of science.
You don’t trust the opinions of such bodies.
Well, that’s not surprising.
It’s to be expected. But it doesn’t carry much weight.
It’s you versus the world’s scientific community.
If your position is correct, the balance of scientific data and opinion will shift to reflect your position.
But essentially, you are currently claiming the scientific community is incompetent or mendacious in willfully distorting the state of the science.
Please take this on board:
Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.
You hinted at your take on reality with assertion that the CDC takes marching orders from ADA.
You can’t win that way.
The modern scientific arena is designed to eradicate the possibility of the science taking “marching orders’ from anybody.
The motto Implies that it is better to put weight on experiment and evidence over assertion but it’s worth observing that “one” is also singular. Modern scientific processes allow for the development of a consensus opinion on the state of many scientific subjects.
Chris, Evidence (and awareness) of dodgy premises is suggested/indicated by a plethora (good word that) of even more questionable and improbable subsidiary hypotheses. The Pre Copernicans called it “epi-cycling”. Stu.
I would be more concerned with the cynical marketing of infant formula in poor communities that don’t even have clean water let alone the resources or understanding to sterilise bottles. Nancy Schepper- Hughes study of Brazilian shanty towns attributed a 40% infant mortality rate ( google it). If your keen on sleepless night read that.
Says it all Steve. I’d just refuse to be baited into dashing about dealing to grass fires when one decent helicopter load of water (fluoridated) would do the trick.
But Steve fluoride remembers!
Don’t forget BO posts on homeopathy sites. There’s your psychological motivation. If it is intrinsically “evil” them it cannot be tolerated to any degree. Salem Massachusetts and all that.
Indulging in a bit if psychotherapy I would suggest absolutism (fundamentalism) is the operative principle here. Science is intrinsically consequentialist. Fundamentalism ain’t isn’t!
Ken,
You asked, “Where did you get that 50% from Bill?” Excellent question.
About 50 posts back it was brought up here as a ball park number. I believe it was NRC 2006, Kathleen Thiessen a member of the committee, who did one of the best jobs as of that date on total exposure. Obviously there is a tremendous variation between individuals, but for most, based on my memory, between 40% to 70% of total exposure comes from water. The 50% number is easy for approximation. Obviously wide individual variations.
The increase in total exposure is one of my biggest concerns. Note the increase in dental fluorosis. And further, individual fluoridated water consumption is down, but dental fluorosis increases. Why? Other sources are providing more fluoride. And some of those other sources are rather important, such as toothpaste, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, etc. But as long as many are ingesting too much fluoride from water, these other uses of fluoride must be more closely controlled to avoid excess exposure.
Ken, you further raised a very important point. “Philosophically probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent. . . . As you say we usually don’t know what we a wrong about – however, we can develop levels of confidence sufficient to use what we know. And it is really naive to suggest we do nothing just in case we might be wrong.”
I fully agree with your balanced public health reasoned philosophy. And when we find something is “wrong” to some extent for some high risk individuals, would it not be best to at least put a notice on the package of caution?
I agree, everything has risk and we should not sit by and do nothing in the face of highly contagious lethal diseases. Dental caries is not highly contagious or lethal.
What happens when public health officials have their reputations on the line and have to promote something which later is seen to be wrong? The theory becomes locked in concrete. Note the Tuskegee experiment. 30 years before it was stopped, treatments were known, yet the US Public Health Services and CDC continued the barbaric experiment for decades, leaving men, women and children to become infected and sick and die. Oh, yes, for the greater good some are sacrificed. The experiment was started just before fluoridation.
Total exposure and the variation of fluoride ingestion from all sources is the main reason I am pushing hard for studies, like those mostly done in China, India and other countries, where serum and urine fluoride are measured. Estimates based on assumptions is not good scientific measurements. We need and can measure individual serum fluoride.
The main issues which changed my mind on fluoridation were:
A. Total exposure is increasing. More and more fluoride is being used in other places increasing total exposure. Who reviews total exposure from all sources and starts to reduce excess exposure? No one. Governments are fragmented with no one looking at the big picture. The suggestion of possibly lowering concentration of fluoride in water to 0.7 ppm, is in part recognition that total exposure is constantly increasing. Most logical to reduce fluoride in water because other sources of fluoride have additional benefits, such as toothpaste, pesticides, medications, post-harvest fumigants, lubricants, teflon, freon, clothes, Scotchguard, etc. etc. When fluoridation started, no increase in dental fluorosis was expected. Then they said 10% increase. Then they said 20% increase. Now we have 41% of children with dental fluorosis. Do we want 100% to have dental fluorosis?
B. Benefit of fluoridation. Without one single prospective RCT, which could be done, we are left with lower quality studies. I wish I could post graphs here so you could see the trends. Countries with our without fluoridated water or/and fluoridated salt all have similar low levels of dental caries. Same for states and counties. No common cause variation with fluoridation. No public health benefit can be seen.
However, I personally was 100% convinced I could see the benefit of fluoride in my patients. Teeth look harder, shinier. So it was a struggle to accept and understand that fluoridation of water no longer provided dental health benefit, certainly little or no life time dental health benefit. Some lowering of caries if confounding problems are ignored. Not a lowering of dental expenses, not fewer dentists in fluoridated communities, no evidence at the community wide level of benefit. Forgot who said, “the success of a public health measure must be measured in the community at large.”
C. Harm from excess fluoride ingestion. There is not dispute, too much fluoride increases health risks.
D. Ethics. Is giving everyone fluoride, even when they are highly chemically sensitive to fluoride or ingesting too much from other sources, when other options are available, ethically reasonable?
For me, brains are more important than teeth. I can fix teeth, no one can fix IQ.
I have to work this week and will not have time to post much. Please provide a link or name of scientific paper on the fluoridation of water which is the scientific foundation for the Royal Societies position on fluoridation.
It will take me time to review their supporting documentation, but well worth the time if you so recommend.
Bill, this discussion is wondering and people are loading track. When I asked about the 50% I was referring to you claim “Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.”
My comment was philosophical and really had nothing to do with with what you have in your reply. Except, of course, that anti-fluoride activists are find of spouting things we were supposed have got wrong in the past to “prove” science is wrong about fluoride.
I know it is extremely naive but it is the sort of “folk wisdom” we often get from anti-science people.
Yes Ken. That hoary old argument about past errors is frequently deployed when criticism must be resisted at all costs. This is delving into Philosophy of Science 301 but modern scientific realism distinguishes between (a) reality and, (b) knowledge claims about it. The later endorses fallibalism. A knowledge claim must be consistent, explain the phenomenon, accurately predict and not beg any questions.
Accordingly science considers the weight of evidence from a plurality of perspectives and disciplines. AGW is a good example. The history of science is replete with theories involving extended causal chains that accurately predict and achieve outcomes. Refinements of course are likely often due to technological developments and more precise measurements. Notoriously people who have an a’priori principle to defend at all costs always resort to overblown pronouncements on doubt and uncertainty.
That paper describes chemical calculations that attempt to discredit the studies of Masters and Coplan, but the calculations merely determine the concentrations of lead and silicate and fluoride that would need to exist in order to cause lead complexes or precipitates to form. This of course is interesting but please understand that lead complexes are not necessary to form in order for flurosilicic acid materials to leach lead.
Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.
Lead based plumbing typically has lead salts on surfaces that dissolve in the presence of acids. Some strong acids do not dissolve lead well.
Silicic acid, although a weak acid, dissolves lead. It has a high dissociation constant, meaning that it takes a great amount of alkalinizer to neutralize it. The amount of alkalizer which neutralizes fluorosilicic acid is not sufficient to neutralize silicic acid.
So silicic acid at neutral pH will displace lead from most of these salts, including lead bisulfate, lead biphosphate, and lead bicarbonate. The products are lead ion and silicate ions.
Of course added flurosilicic acid levels are not high enough to produce lead silicate precipitates, but so what? The point is that silicic acid can dissolve lead form lead salts and this is the most plausible mechanism that explains the detailed studies of Masters and Coplan indicating increase in lead ion levels in water and in blood of consumers after fluorosilicic acid treatment.
***
Urbansky was wrong. That is clear. Read more about the FACT that lead concentrations, both lead concentrations in water and in blood – whatever the mechanism – is higher when water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.
The fluoridationists lose on this argument, so they have to take the backup position that the increase in lead caused by fluorosilicic acid is not enough to worry about. In Everett 10% of homes have up to around 50 ppb lead in first draw water. When Tacoma stopped fluoridating because of a water shortage, lead levels dropped almost in half. They went back up when fluoridation was restarted. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/tacoma.
You have to stop ignoring the science which would show fluoridation as harmful to health.
You have to find your way out of the maze and quit blocking the exits with journal articles which do not address the right issue.
James, I find Sauerheber’s comments on the breakdown products of fluorosilicic acid naive. Silicic acid would only have transitory existence at neutral pHs and olimerisation processes lead to polymerisation and eventually precipitation of silica. His comments smack of an attempt to use simplified chemistry to justify a claim which has actually been shown wrong.
Please explain at greater length. There are some missing word and some errors in grammar. Please address Dr. Sauerheber’s statements point by point as he does those of Urbansky.
I am not going to get into all the issues around this – my intention was just to point out that arguments relying on the persistence of a monomeric silicic acid just do not correspond to the real world where polymerisation processes occur at neutral pHs. Hopefully I have already corrected my typos.
Jamesrobertdeal.
“Will water fluoridation result in pipe corrosion or increased lead in drinking water?
Water fluoridation will not increase water corrosion or cause lead to leach (dissolve) from pipes and household plumbing fixtures. Although lead in public drinking water is typically found to be very low or is below laboratory detection, there are locations where old lead pipes, solder, or plumbing fixtures in old homes may experience leaching of lead into water. This is principally a problem in some older homes because newer homes have been constructed in accordance with new plumbing standards that prohibit the use of lead in plumbing pipes and fixtures. Ask your local water utility system if there have been problems with higher lead levels in water from older homes in your community. Claims by some that fluoride might result in increased lead leaching from pipes and fixtures has not been substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
Principally because the fluoride is in ionic form particularly at the approved concentrations.
But if you are desperate to make a point in spite of the laws of chemistry you will identify lead in some domestic water somewhere and attribute it to fluoride. Women have been burned at the stake or stoned to death on that sort of reasoning, even in contemporary times.
NSF says some batches when diluted produce drinking water contain up to 1.1 ppb after dilution. Are you ready to certify that this is safe?
A separate issue is the lead leached from plumbing. That is in addition to the lead from the scrubber liquor. You seem to be okay if people living in older houses get lead poisoned. Only a few will be poisoned, and they are poor.
You say newer homes do not have lead plumbing and so are not at risk. Not necessarily, because brass in new faucets is typically 8% lead – except in California – and copper pipes are often welded together with lead-copper solder..
Sorry, I have reposted, but it doesn’t go to the document when I click on the link that I have in my file. But I can give Ian the final conclusion:
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiffs wish, they may file an amended complaint within fourteen days after this order is electronically docketed. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 10, 2012
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
And Bill, you might note that Judge Sammartino is a United States District Judge. Wouldn’t you agree this ruling involves Federal jurisdiction?
(Bill says, “You have taken those court cases out of context”. I ask, What does out of context mean?)
From the American Dental Association’s Fluoridation Facts, page 47:
QUESTION 51.
Has the legality of water fluoridation been upheld by the courts?
Answer.
yes. Fluoridation has been thoroughly tested in the United States’ court system, and found to be a proper means of furthering public health and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be
unlawful. Moreover, fluoridation has been clearly held not to be an unconstitutional invasion of religious freedom or other individual rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. And while cases decided primarily on procedural grounds have been won and lost by both pro and anti fluoridation interests, to ADA’s knowledge no final ruling in any of those cases has found fluoridation to be anything but safe and effective.
“No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful.
The highest courts of more than a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.”
325
Fact.
During the last sixty years, the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems. Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.
324
In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s mandatory fluoridation law, culminating 16 years of court action at a variety of judicial levels.
326
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases thirteen times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.
325
It has been the position of the American courts that a significant government interest in the health and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.
333
Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation
ordinances are a deprivation of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
325,327
In reviewing the legal aspects of fluoridation, the courts have dealt with this concern by ruling that: (1) fluoride is a nutrient, not a medication, and is present naturally in the environment; (2) no one is forced to drink fluoridated water as alternative sources are available; and (3) in cases where a person believes that fluoridation interferes with religious beliefs, there is a difference between the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to practice beliefs, which may be restricted in the public’s interest.
328,329
James.
I’m not endorsing anything (except fluoride at appropriate concentrations). I am simply quoting the relevant authorities. I haven’t the time resources or expertise to personally check every possible environmental threat to my well being. Society would grind to a halt if that was necessary. The overwhelming majority of scientists and public servants are not hell bent on inflicting harm. It sometimes happens out of ignorance or carelessness. The problems in most societies have nothing to do with fluoridated water in fact it is plausible it is a sign of a caring community but not of course if you think the world is continually threatened by evil agencies.
Most of the problems from lead exposure among the general population came from motor vehicle exhaust ( leaded petrol) and lead based paint. .45ppm hardly constitutes a problem (according to the EPA). There are plenty of people in the US who want to discredit them of course. The persistence of lead in the environment stems from historical ignorance. Such things cannot be rectified overnight. There is probably more lead in your garden than in your drinking water.
James Robert Deal – I don’t propose approving your last comment. It is simply the article you have posted on your own web site titled The Fluoridationists.
This is not a good faith contribution to the discussion here, but an attempt to discredit the discussion. Anyone interested can read the article on your web site and comment on it there. Discussion of it here would just be as diversion.
James. Just because I don’t read the journal articles you recommend doesn’t mean I don’t read journal articles. I restrict my reading to official sites and peer reviewed material that acknowledges the well established laws of chemistry. I also have more faith in studies on local adjacent populations that have much in common bar the variable under study. The US and China being heavily industrialised nations have many sources of genuinely toxic contaminants. Fluoride should be the least of your worries.
“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb”
This is a real question. Seriously. And it goes to the heart of why many people can and do abdicate their resources (or crudely put, invest their “trust”) with the scientific community instead of a fringe minority.
Some of us have got to work you know…
This is a question which you haven’t the courtesy to reply to. It is a variation of Richard’s timeless question;
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
“Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.”
Elegant.
No one person has even attempted to answer it.
(51) I will invite you again to answer it. And Bill.
And any person out there who supports the anti fluoridation stance.
My attempt was not to try and make you feel like a clown.
You, like Bill, choose not to answer simple and clear questions.
Instead, you ignore them, and deflect the issue by having a self imposed pity party.
Again…see line 51 and have a crack…go on, I know you want to…
Christopher. I’m flattered to find myself pilloried in the same blog. That’s alright.
I content myself by reminding my self of the instructive legacy of Charles Dawson (Piltdown hoaxer) and Sir Richard Owen, the supreme egoist and plagiarist who “lied for God”. To give our friends their due, they are probably sincere. Sincerely promoting a questionable ethical principle masquerading as questionable science.
Christopher on Mr Deals site is the following beauty that links fluoride with Sarin nerve gas. Is this tenuous “guilt by association” thesis sincere or a cynical move to sell the water filters and books he lists?
“So in the West, we can drink it, bathe in it, brush our teeth with it, be told to take it for our health, we can spray it on our growing food, incorporate it in to building materials, paint in on wooden doors, window frames, furniture – in Syria it is “poison gas” and “nerve gas.””
Christopher asks:
“This is a question which you haven’t the courtesy to reply to. It is a variation of Richard’s timeless question;
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
“Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.”
Dear Christopher,
I think I have covered this. Agencies got set up with all good intentions. But big corporations wanted to be let off easy, and so they went to work through lobbyists and donations to politicians and got “their people” appointed to the agencies, such as Michael Taylor, Mr. Monsanto, heading up the FDA branch that approves GMO crops and food. In the EPA there is a split between EPA administrators and EPA scientists. The scientists oppose fluoridation and even sued the administrators. The CDC is split too. Fluoridation policy is run out of one office made up of a bunch of administrative dentists while the rest of the CDC looks the other way. The CDC scientists post articles which admit that 41% of the kids have some degree of fluorosis, with 12.% of it being noticeable and embarrassing. The CDC scientists post articles which say that the effect of fluoridation is primarily topical and not systemic and that the effect is post-eruption of the teeth, which means that it does not help to give fluoride to kids. Yet CDC administrators still promote fluoridation.
And you have the EPA administrators setting up the NSF and offloading fluoridation approval to NSF while the EPA scientists wrote the NSF 60 requirements that fluoridation materials to be approved go through 20 tox studies, which they haven’t, which makes all fluoridation materials non- compliant with NSF 60.
Like everything in our country there is political division in the agencies just as in Congress. Big corporations do not want to lose their cash flow and so they hire the lobbyists and fund the politicians.
So that is the mechanism. You should not be so trusting of our agencies. I would say one of the mechanisms that allows fluoridationists to remain trapped in their maze is that the exits from the maze are blocked. One of the blocking mechanisms is the belief that we should trust our agency heads and that if fluoridation were not good it would have been halted.
It was as scam from the beginning. It was a profitable scam, and so FDA and EPA never developed the will to stop it.
Cargill and Mosaic donate heavily to medical and dental schools, which follow the pro-fluoridation line.
So ;think for yourself. Don’t let the agency heads think for you.
Vaccination is similar to fluoridation in that it has been turned into a giant cash flow engine for big companies. They won complete immunity from liability. So they crank out new vaccines without full safety testing. And kids have serious reactions. The Vaccine Court has paid out $2 billion to victims, and most victims get turned away.
The flu vaccine is only around 1% effective against the current strains of flu.
Most of the kids who came down with whooping cough last year had already been fully vaccinated against it.
Giving newborn babies the hepatitis B vaccine is truly bizzare, as it is a disease spread typically through sharing needles to mainline illegal drugs.
I question giving immunity from liability to the vaccine manufacturers. This immunity has made them reckless. Manufacturers do not have to run the same extensive studies they do for other drugs – because their liability is limited through a no-fault insurance and compensation system.
There are children who have reactions to vaccines, and if they are, they cannot in most cases sue in regular courts. They must file a claim with the Vaccine Court, which has paid out some $2 billion during its existence.
But the Vaccine Court does not fairly compensate those harmed. There is no jury. Those who receive compensation must often agree to keep silent about the settlement. Appeal to regular courts is difficult and rare.
We are giving children 45 vaccinations before they go to school. My concern is about too many insufficiently tested vaccines too soon, before the child immune system is developed.
Like fluoridation, vaccination has become an industry which has developed a large cash flow and large profits. Once that happens our regulatory agencies receive pressure to accommodate such profitable schemes.
Nevertheless, vaccination is off topic for this discussion. Your bringing it up is a smear attempt because you and a lot of people totally trust their agencies and the big corporations they shill for and have absolute faith in all vaccinations.
The validity of my arguments regarding fluoridation should not be tested by what I post regarding vaccination.
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
Bill: ” Dental caries is not highly contagious or lethal.”
You are way out of touch if you don’t realize the overwhelming problem we have in this country with untreated dental disease. Dental caries most certainly can and has been lethal. Diamonte Driver in 2007? Life-threatening infection from untreated dental decay is rampant. To attempt to trivialize this problem is to add to it.
Sorry, but I’ll take the findings of peer-reviewed scientific study by Urbansky and Schock over the opinion of your assumedly paid “Scientific Consultant” Richard Sauerhaber who cites your “fluoride-class-action” website as his support.
“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(I1) IN POTABLE WATER? HIEXAFLUOROSILICATE AND FLUORIDE EQUILIBRIA IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION*
EDWARD T. URBANSKY and MICHAEL R.SCHOCK
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Additionally, from the EPA:
“According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, corrosion is not related to fluoride.”
——-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, Dental Disease Prevention Activity. Water Fluoridation: A Manual for Engineers and Technicians. Atlanta, GA, CDC, September 1986.
In regard to Masters and Coplan:
.” . . Recent reports [Masters and Coplan] that purport to link certain water fluoridating agents, such as fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate, to human lead uptake are inconsistent with accepted scientific knowledge. The authors of those reports fail to identify or account for these inconsistencies, and mainly argue on the basis of speculation stated without proof as fact. The sampling scheme employed in the studies is entirely unrelated to any credible statistically-based study design to identify drinking water lead and fluo ride exposure as a significant source of blood lead in the individuals. The authors use aggregated data unrelated in space and time and then attempt to selectively apply gross statistical techniques that do not include any of thousands of other possible water quality or exposure variables which could show similar levels of correlation utterly by accident.”
—Urbansky ET, Schock MR. Can fluoridation affect lead(II) in potable water? Hexafluorosilicate and fluoride equilibria in aqueous solution. Int J Environ Studies. 2000;57:597-637
Obviously you don’t understand that NSF Standard 60 certification begins at the tap, as this the water which will be ingested. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant, including lead, in water from the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements.
It is comical that you claim the CDC to be wrong while citing only your “fluoride-class-action Scientific Consultant”, Richard Sauerhaber, as your only support.
Obviously you don’t understand that NSF Standard 60 certification begins at the tap, as this the water which will be ingested. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant, including lead, in water from the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements.
Response:
I do understand NSF 60. In addition to the 10% margin requirement, NSF 60 requires that 20 tox studies be done. They are not being done. Thus the NSF 60 stamp on certificates of analysis are fraudulent. Using the EPA MCL’s instead of tox studies is inappropriate because MCLs are not authorizations to add any contaminant to water. They are requirements that contaminants be removed if they exceed the MCL. There is nothing comical about this fraudulent consumer protection act violation.
“In your opinion, if not the manufacturer of the product, then who’s responsibility is it to ensure the product is safe and effective? Who has jurisdiction? Please provide your evidence without attacking me personally.”
I don’t believe that municipal town water could be fairly called a “product”.
However, where I live in Christchurch New Zealand, The Ministry of Health, through the provision of standards ensures that an appropriate infrastructure is present to support the provision of clean and safe drinking-water to communities. This is enforced through Health (Drinking-Water) Amendment Act 2007.
In addition and probably more relevant to the discussion here, there are three organisations that are involved with the provision of safe drinking-water to any particular community, one at the local level, one regional and one at the National level.
This is not my opinion, this is the legal framework.
JD: “Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.”
JJ: Question #1: Who has measured silicic acid at the tap? The CDC National Fluoridation Engineer, Kip Duchon, like his predecessors, state that none of the hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) remains intact at the tap. HFSA dissociates into fluoride ion, silica, and hydrogen ion. He also states that you can not measure something that doesn’t exist at the tap. Please provide the literature that clearly demonstrates silicic acid is present at the tap.
JD: Question #2: It appears that you do not have an objection to the fluoride ion in water. If this is correct, then would fluoridation with another fluoridating agent get your nod of approval?
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist, Palm Harbor (Pinellas County), Florida
1. NSF Standard 60 language is clear. The standard states that if an EPA MCL exists for a contaminant, then toxicological tests are not required:
Fluoride
“As noted above, NSF/ANSI Standard 60 requires, when available, that the US EPA MCL be used to determine the acceptable level for a chemical of interest. The EPA MCL for fluoride ion in water is 4 mg/L.”
2. Additionally, NSF Standard 60 addresses your previous post:
JD: “Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.”
Silicate
“Fluorosilicates do not require a toxicological assessment specifically for the fluorosilicate ion, because measurable levels of this ion do not exist in potable water at the fluoride concentrations and pH levels typical of public drinking water.”
Your argument against NSF Standard 60 isn’t holding water. The most recent example of this was in Clarksburg, West Virginia, where you unsuccessfully attempted to convince their Water Board to stop using HFSA as it was against West Virginia State Law. The Water Board unanimously tabled your request:
Let me once again attempt to enlighten you on Standard 60. This Standard only applies to water from the tap. Presumedly the “tox studies” to which you refer would be in regard to HFA. However, HFA does not exist at the tap, thus is not subject to tox testing requirements. The trace levels of contaminants easily fall short of the NSF certification maximum of 10% EPA MCL. So, unless you are demanding tox studies be done on fluoride ions which are identical to those already existing in water, there is nothing to test.
“More than 40 states have laws or regulations requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a concentration of less than ten percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maximum use level. The EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no known health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples from public water systems to be well below these levels.”
—-Reeves TG. Current technology on the engineering aspects of water fluoridation. Paper presented at National Fluoridation Summit, September 8, 2000 Sacramento, CA.
“Instead of trying to put e down as stupid, provide your position and science.”
My position is that I believe 0.7ppm concentration of F in municipal town water supplies reduce the incidence of dental caries among the population. At these levels, it is safe and causes no harm to the community.
As to your request to provide science, I think you need to be more specific; what do you mean here?
But just to kick things off, how about we jump right into a subject.
It has to do with some claims that YOU have recently made.
You said;
“Plotting the 50 US states on the percent of whole state population fluoridated and mental retardation reported in 1992.
As the percent of the populations on fluoridated water increases a tripling of mental retardation is found.
Consistent with half a standard deviation drop in IQ, about 8 IQ points and consistent with Choi’ study from Harvard.”
I don’t understand your sentence construction, and therefore what you are saying, let alone meaning!
Are you relying on the Choi study from Harvard to support your apparent belief that fluoride triples, in your words, mental retardation?
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
Smell it.
Take a deep whiff.
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Now look, Cedric. Give the guy a break. After all, he did cite Mercola and NaturalNews as his sources of information on vaccines. Who could be any more authoritative than that?
His methodology is somehow…strangely familiar.
I suppose I could go to “X” blog and get my information on science from from some no-name blog hosted by some guy in their parent’s basement.
I could.
That would be stupid though.
Fortunately, I have a certain minimum standard on where I get my science information on any scientific top.
I don’t mess with the wannabees. I just go straight to the top.
So, for example, if I wanted to find out about smoking and if it was dangerous or not…I’d check out the Surgeon General and every single medical community on the planet.
It would be strange not to.
As a methodologies go, it’s kickass. It works really well for for all sorts of scientific issues.
Test it for yourself.
The validity of my arguments regarding fluoridation should not be tested by what I post regarding vaccination.
No, it really should be tested.
It’s about methodology. Look it up. The same methodology that would allow a person to prop up their own biases and preconceptions so that they could deny the scientific consensus on one issue is…perfect…for any other issue.
It’s the same playbook.
Not happy with evolution? Why look! Here’s a blog. It tells you what you want to hear.
Not happy with HIV being linked to AIDS?
Why look! Here’s a blog. It tells you what you want to hear.
Same diff for all the rest.
If your methodogy is essentially the same as nutjob “X” for some other denialist thing, then you need to back up and reconsider your position.
Yet look deeper at that blog that you found. It’s doesn’t matter which one. Strip away the identifying labels and they all blend seemlessly into one other.
It’s all Galileo Gambits and quote-mining and promoting isolated contrarians with some Phd or other and book promotions and conspiracy thinking all wrapped up in the cloak of the stalwart crusader who refuses to let go of the TROOTH in the face of “them”. It’s set up to make you feel that you have inside knowledge. You see it. You understand it all better than they do…and one day, one fine day…you’ll show ’em. History will prove you right. Any day now. Very soon. Just you wait! They’ll see.
No. It’s not happening.
There are two ways to challenge the scientific consensus.
One way gets you a Nobel Prize.
The other way leads you to a blog peddling a book.
Hi jamesrobertdeal
Thank you for your reply
You did not give me a scientific mechanism. You gave me a (conspiracy) theory.
Don’t take this in a pejorative way – conspiracies do occur – but I would hazard to guess just not as often as you like to think.
You gave me a long history peppered with many unsubstantiated facts (which I do not know whether true or not).
Could you please distil it down into a short few pithy sentences, omitting irrelevant details? – parsimony is key to any mechanism, especially on the scale that you are operating.
However, one glaring problem that I see is you centre your theory on the USA.
I understand you live there, however how do you account for pro-fluoridation positions held in other countries, for example NZ?
(after loads of wriggling as to his opposition yet non-opposition to vaccination)
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
Voila, both topics neatly juxtaposed by Mr deal in the same paragraph.
Which of course underscores the relevance of noting Mr Deal’s role in advocating against the mainstream medical position on vaccination.
It’s all science denial. The nay-saying of the scientific and medical consensus. Anti-fluoridation, anti-vaccination, HIV-denial.
As Cedric tirelessly notes, they all sing from the same score sheet.
Ken, You said,
“Bill, this discussion is wondering and people are loading track. When I asked about the 50% I was referring to you claim “Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.””
Sorry, I misunderstood which 50% you were talking about. The 50% is a phrase to indicate that we must never assume what we know and what we are doing is actually correct. Perhaps another way of saying, “science is not stagnant.” For example, I no longer use about 90% of the dental materials I used in school. Constant change, constant improvements.
You also said,
“I know it is extremely naive but it is the sort of “folk wisdom” we often get from anti-science people.”
Who are the anti-science people you are referring to? Fluoridation is “folk wisdom” “tradition” “myth” “government policy without oversight” and FDA CDER calls it an “unapproved, misbranded, adulterated and illegal drug” which for political reasons they are deferring regulatory action.
Hi Bill, (and ANY other anti-fluoridationist)
Hi Bill, (and ANY other anti-fluoridationist)
On the topic of “Science”
I would appreciate your take on this and ANY other anti- fluoridationist)
This is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.
“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”
Well, what about this study….
“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”
Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Apr;36(2):e83-8. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
On the topic of “Science”
I would appreciate your take on this and ANY other anti- fluoridationist)
This is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.
“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”
Well, what about this study….
“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”
Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Apr;36(2):e83-8. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
Research follows the money, its expensive so no one is going to research something thats not funded
If your Pro then your looking for the good effects in this case perfect or near perfect teeth Gov’ts are protective of policy & traditionally hard to change especially laws in this case which have been around for a very long time, the companies with supply contracts will fund research they believe will help sales (crazy if they didn’t). and any other associations/individuals which would lose a benefit if its not going their way
If you looking for Con (anti) the your looking at what else does it do …but tell me who funds this, a few outside mainstream, some individuals or associations who have a different need or perhaps a different system/product which works better
All this adds bias to what science does first
Now if we have 41% dental fluorsis in the US of A according to the supporters of F this could see a lot more funding by gov’t and the dental associations who would like see the better good for their communities
as to why there is this startlely increase of Fluorsis
Where oh where to begin….
Ian,
It is clear that you don’t understand the scientific method.
It has been explained on this blog ad-nauseum.
But, to shed some light on your dim viewpoint.
Bias IS a well-recognised element of scientific research.
Scientists know this.
Really, it’s their job. They design their experiments with this in mind.
These designs are published in their research papers; it’s called the Method section.
In the Discussion section of these studies, they discuss these biases along with other confounding factors.
Really.
You can read it for yourself and make you mind up as to the respective study validity, reliability or strength of their conclusions. Just pick up any reputable journal and take a peek.
But you don’t need to worry yourself with all that complimacated stuff because this study (if any good) will be subjected to peer review.
If it is poor research, it should get ripped to shreds.
If it is good research, it may be published in a reputable scientific journal.
No guarantees though, if you want one of those, buy a toaster……..(And NO I am not opening a door for conspiracy theorists)
But here’s a question for you Ian. You appear to think there is 41% of fluorosis in the US (admittedly your last sentences are difficult to decipher)
How do you know this and how do you trust this to be true?
I’m no longer interested in the manifest content of the shrieking from these idiots. What interests me more is their incorrigibility. Must be something to do with the culture (US) which is strongly relativistic and litigious. It’s like a weird scene from some eschatological movie ( and given the bible fundamentalism in the US who would be surprised – already!). Reality is determined by courts of law, or philosophical dispute, or theological minutiae. Meantime glaciers are melting, storms are increasing and sea levels rise.
“fluorosis is in the increase” says one of them. “IQs are plummeting” says another. These people are like robots that react to whatever contradicts their programmed paranoia. This is work for sociologists and psychologists me thinks. I don’t watch TV at all now (didn’t bother converting to digital) partly because of the raving paranoia coming out of the US.
If I could get my hands on them I’d hold them under water until their legs stopped thrashing!
You can play switch the labels: Health and tobacco research , HIV research, evolution. fluoridation, vaccination research, climate change research.
Their opponents all level the same charge.
Welcome to the machine, you have entered the alternative reality of the conspiracy theory.
(….and, off topic.
Ian, the spelling of the contracted form of “you are” is “you’re”, not “your”.
This information supplied in good faith.)
Ian – you need an I phone mate. They correct spelling though sometimes substitute an unintended word.
Ian – re the financial masters theory. It does happen but not as ubiquitous as you seem to think. Researchers particularly those funded by public money cannot afford to lose credibility. An in any case, the peer review system where your research is scrutinised by people not of your choosing generally exposes trumped up conclusions. Even this web site pretty much exposes the dodgy claims. That’s why some correspondents don’t like us looking at their other web sites.
(These are the cranks who took NIWA to court claiming they faked NZ temperature record. Judging from the volume of the squealing it must be getting close to the time they have to pay costs awarded against them.)
Yep.
I (and others) repeat myself. I don’t really have a choice. I continuously refer to the same basic videos explaining genuine skepticism and I am forever taking one PRATT talking point from science denial topic “A” and switching it around with science denial topic “B” to show that they are merely two peas in a pod.
It’s always the same playbook.
I do it because of people like Ian.
I already know the arguments. All of the regulars already know the arguments. Plus they know exactly how I’m going to respond to them.
(and I’m sure it gets boring for them just as it does for me.)
It’s just once more around on the merry-go-round.
But then there’s people like Ian.
He’s not going to take the time to read and review all the previous relevent threads.
He’s got no idea how many times other people have used the EXACT SAME RATIONALISATIONS to turn a blind eye on the scientific consensus on “X”.
Which forces me and others to repeat themselves.
That’s the nature of PRATT’s.
That’s the nature of arguing with a science denier who has discovered some blog on the internet that is telling him what he wants to hear.
That’s the nature of conspiracy thinking.
Research follows the money, its expensive so no one is going to research something thats not funded
Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.
(Index to Creationist Claims)
(These are the cranks who took NIWA to court claiming they faked NZ temperature record. Judging from the volume of the squealing it must be getting close to the time they have to pay costs awarded against them.)
Take a good hard look at that blog.
Notice anything, you anti-fluoridationists out there?
Read the articles. Look at the way they frame their arguments. Check out their comments.
Identify the basic methodology they are using to get their information and prop up their ideology.
See it?
Yep. You’re looking into a mirror. They are doing what you are doing.
Don’t like it? Tough.
Reality can suck like that.
You see, your bog-standard climate denier and you have the same basic problem.
It’s you versus the scientific consensus.
For many, many decades now.
Really hard to go up against it.
So if you are not willing to accept all the work that went into creating that scientific consensus on “X”, you have two choices:
1) Roll up your sleeves and earn a Nobel Prize.
2) Comment on a blog run by some guy in his mother’s basement and buy his vanity-press novel.
Richard Christie.
I visited the “alternative universe” and even left an unwelcome posting which seems to have evaporated. An in-group echo chamber I would say.
Christopher Atkinson can you even use google since you are such nice fellow correcting my English (thanks for that) here’s the link http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
that must be one of those crank sites you were talking about……
I think its one of your trusted sites
Hence I would think that this would require a lot more investigation
The ADA could help fund it with the help of the gov’t……………I mean they wont want effect all those children going forward I guess we just have to wait another 60 years to see if the reduction works
Golly when do think funding will be announced for appropriate testing even you would want that to protect your children & grand kids
To understand the MO of these dudes you need to know a but about Edward Louis Bernays, nephew of Signalman Freud the well known Austrian railway worker. Nephew Ted, a disillusioned character defined public relations and “knowledge” in general as propaganda.
This idea influenced both left and right wing activism and flourished in recent decades among academic humanities “intellectuals”. Hence their contempt for scientific realism and sociological theories of knowledge. Such is their haste to transform society one way or another they forget (ex hypothesis) the rule also applies to them. But if the universe is Godless propaganda (or style – Oscar Wilde and me) is everything.
I think you are getting me confused with Richard as he corrected your poor spelling, not me.
Your English? I’m sure you haven’t spoken to Richard, so the appropriate term would be spelling.
While we are here though, your punctuation and grammar could do with a little tweaking – – but C’est la vie. I won’t get all high and mighty, mine’s not too hot either!
Also, I think you intended to say “affect” not “effect” – a common mistake
But at least I can make sense of it! So not to worry
Nor did I call you a crank.
Again, get it right.
Regarding referencing and citations.
You didn’t, so don’t get your Y fronts in a bunch when asked for.
It’s rude not include these when you make a claim, as a matter of course.
Thank you for providing a reference this time.
You said; “I think its one of your trusted sites”.
No, I don’t own it you silly sausage! But the CDC does provide reputable publications.
You on the other hand YOU are not trustworthy. No, No,No.
You are dishonest.
Why?
Because you claimed that this publication showed that their was 41% of fluorosis in the USA.
It doesn’t, not even close.
One click and hey presto
Right there in bold on page One was;
“Less than one-quarter of persons aged 6-49 had dental fluorosis”
Last time I looked 25 was lower than 41. Severe fluorosis measured less than 1%
The only result involving 41% related to a very small age range…you wouldn’t be selectively cherry picking numbers to misrepresent your position now would you?
Selective interpretation by both
cause aren’t we talking about children when your an adult you don’t get it
Prevalence of dental fluorosis was higher among younger persons and ranged from 41% among adolescents aged 12-15
I ignored “9% among adults aged 40-49.” adults do drop the average…..so mate I can see you cherry pick
Shame on you I can see the future generations don’t matter…
& yes I realized some is what pro camp call cosmetic but the total is clear in the age group 12-15 clearly stated at 41% for all types of dental fluorosis
Can you please confirm if its cosmetic no dental treatment required so there is no cost to the public purse or mine
Mate I would happily donate some funds to get this matter clarified by research in which F in the diet is controlled and all affects are studied and all biochemical pathways are reviewed fully so our kids & their kids are protected from dental fluorosis at the very least
In regard to CDC/Beltrain-Aguilar, that “41% of all children” is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.
The percentage of that 3.8% who may desire cosmetic treatment does not override the dental decay preventing benefit to the whole population. The cosmetics alone from dental decay are far worse than any from moderate dental fluorosis, and this not even take into account the amount of pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection that is prevented by water fluoridation. The cost savings of preventing the need for restoration of decayed teeth completely dwarfs any expenses involved in cosmetic treatment of the very few with moderate fluorosis who may desire to have it.
Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Ian
“…so our kids and their kids are protected from dental fluorosis at the very least”
Yes, once our children are “protected” from the life-threatening, facial deforming, oral health destructive, mind numbing, financially devastating, major disease of mild to very mild dental fluorosis, we would then be free to tackle the next item on the list of fluoridation horrors….hangnail.
…here’s the link (give the link to the CDC) that must be one of those crank sites you were talking about…
It’s amazing. They always do that. Trying to enlist on their side an authoritative source. As if it will somehow…help them.
Climate deniers do it too. The exact same thing. Only they have to do it with NASA or the IPCC.
It doesn’t work.
It’s still them versus the scientific consensus. It’s not going to magically change due to some lonely graph/paragraph/diagram/photo/statistic creatively lifted from a mainstream science source.
Ian? The CDC supports water fluoridation. We know this.
You should to.
Trust me when I say that they have a website in plain English and they spell it out nice and clear.
(No. Cancel that. Check it for yourself. It’s worth a read.)
For you to go hunting for something and go “Ooogity-Boogity” and play make-believe that you are in sync with the CDC smacks of desperation.
If you have to contort yourself that badly, then it speaks badly of your integrity.
Whatever you think it is you are doing, you’re doing it wrong.
Shame on you.
…cause aren’t we talking about children when your an adult you don’t…
It’s “you’re” nor “your”.
Grammer: It’s the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you’re shit.
According to Figure 3 Change in dental fluorosis prevalence among childen aged 12-15………..
Dental Fluorosis1986-1987 1999-2004 Difference
Unaffected 47.1 39.6 7.5 decrease
Questionable 30.2 19.7 10.5 decrease
Very Mild 17.2 28.5 11.3 increase
Mild 4.1 8.6 4.5 increase (>100%)
Moderate &
Severe 1.3 3.6 2.3 increase (>170%)
Note the increase in the dental when its expressed as a percentage for the last 2 categories…& your busy reassuring me that F is good in water…may well be if that’s the only source, but with the hugh increase in the worst forms of D F
All of this to save part of a tooth
As for the science being right.
There have been plenty of examples in history showing that in time science changes over time & knowledge increases
Ian, if you are incapable of learning and applying a simple grammatical device in order to make your comments easily readable, why should we expect you to understand or be corrected on anything that is more complicated, such as your miscomprehended statistics and interpretation of scientific papers.
so Steve you think I twisted data, nope the data shows that there was an increase in Moderate & Severe from 1.3 % to 3.6% (fig 3 CDC report) the difference is a massive 176.9% increase (that’s 2.3/1.3*100)
Obviously the CDC & the Dental association don’t consider this to be an statistically significant but as a precaution the issue could be given little more research
Nothing new here Steve old data it 2013 we should be looking at a follow up study in the same age group to see if there any changes or is it getting worse Hope there is one in the pipe line.
Thanks Richard wasn’t sure you understood, I certainly didn’t come up with this, history is a wonderful thing but only if we have a open mind
Ian. Forget the blog sites. Just go and look in people’s mouths. Ask ordinary people who live in fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. Intelligent sensible people I mean, not beer swilling thickoes in truck stops.
It’s important to deal with the denial theories on a point by point basis but unless you control the mass media or large chunks of it like Rupert Murdoch you have to deal with them one at a time (like Marathon). The protagonists (Ian and Trevor) are expendable but the message is repeated, and repeated, and repeated. This can be discouraging because you don’t know when it will end.
At the same time it is worthwhile to look at the larger context which is all about manipulating public perceptions. I’ve already mentioned Edward Bernays and his equating knowledge with propaganda. His 1928 book “Propaganda” became the foundation document of Madison Avenue. We saw the culture in the recent TV drama series “Mad Men” which incidentally reglamourised smoking seductively as only period pieces can do. One wonders how much tobacco money went into it. The kind of irony Madison Avenue execs love.
Anyway, following this trend came Berger and Luckman’s “The Social Construction of Reality” (1966) which fell on fertile soil among left wing intellectuals who had a stake in subverting the current hegemony. This was popular because in the spirit of the times there were and are plenty of hegemonies that need subverting. White, male, heterosexual, Anglo Saxon, Protestant, Big Capital, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Banking, intellectuals, science, the Military Industrial Complex, the list is endless.
The problem with this theory is it revolves on an equivocation. It equivocates between the world (reality) and perceptions of it. It has a linguistic formulation too which claims reality is created by language. This is (literally) tailor made for the intellectually lazy. Thus dinosaurs did not exist until we gave them a name “dinosaur”. (Philosophers rightly call this the Use/Mention confusion). This linguistic approach resonates in many cultures and is very ancient. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1-3). There are various ways of interpreting this but “word” is variously interpreted as idea, thought or logos (reason). Ancient Chinese cosmology had similar formulations. The ancients in their ignorance thought language was unique to humans, their distinguishing characteristic. Many even philosophers, still do. An interesting aside is the evolution of daughter languages which corresponds apparently to shared interests. Language joins insiders and excludes outsiders. Berger and Luckman’s theory was effectively challenged by philosopher John Searle’s “The Construction of Social Reality”(1995).
If you look at the dates you will notice the generation that corresponds to Berger and Luckman’s book. The postwar generation. The university students of that era were strongly influenced by Marxist ideas from teachers who graduated in the 20s and 30s. With the failure of Marxist theory (May 68 and all that) to overturn capitalism, academics with these intellectual tools chose other more limited targets. Many abandoned theory completely (Postmodernists) and others “discovered capitalism” (If you can’t beat ’em join ’em!).
Alan Bloom famously challenged these developments “The Closing of the American Mind” (1987). He argued the youth of the day were distracted from authentic politics by the pursuit of spurious freedoms that make the rich richer. It is he claimed, the direct result of philosophical nihilism. This thinking percolates down into uncritical minds as a scepticism to any kind of authority including scientific, political, moral and philosophical authority. All that is left is psychological egoism exemplified by Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko and mad fringe theories posturing as science.
Here endeth the lesson.
Like I said, Ian. Data can be twisted to conform to any belief you wish. 1.3% to 3.6%? By all means, feel free to consider that “massive” if that will help your rationalization.
As far as “giving the issue a little more research”…….there is not but so much research you can do on a minuscule few parts per million of fluoride ions identical to those you’ve been consuming since birth. But, again, feel free. In the meantime, there is certainly not sufficient reason to deprive a population the benefits of water fluoridation while you do your further research.
There have been plenty of examples in history showing that in time science changes over time & knowledge increases…therefore all the scientific communities on the planet are wrong but you are right.
Gosh, Ian. Nobody has ever tried that gambit before. It’s oh so very new.
Not.
Who could ever imagine an anti-vaxxer or a climate denier or a creationist saying the exact same thing?
…history is a wonderful thing but only if we have a open mind… therefore all the scientific communities are wrong and you are right.
(shakes head sadly)
What are you going to do next? Inform us that “science doesn’t know everything”?
Steve at what level of DF would you recommend research there is an overall uptrend in all categories in the 1986-2004 period
Will a reduction of F in water or, could it be due to F from another source (toothpaste, fumigates), failure to educate people to use F free water in infant formula
as a lot bottled water is consumed what affect does this have on F consumption/exposure
Ask ordinary people you say what a great idea…they obviously know a lot & can be 100% responsible for what ever they do,…they are so well educated
Cedric science sees all, knows all but too view understand it
open your mind to science & may it bring the next revelation
the point about science is it should always be subject to review and new hypothesis’
Who could ever imagine an anti-vaxxer or a climate denier or a creationist saying the exact same thing?
Your the only one here saying it so which are you ???????????
Ian, water is fluoridated at the miniscule level of 0.7 ppm. There have been no adverse effects proven attributable to it in its entire 68 year history. Conjecture and personal opinion will never cease. Opponents attempting to invoke the. “Precautionary Principle” until “more is known” are simply cloaking, in this concept, their efforts to have water fluoridation permanently abandoned. The one thing they do understand about fluoridation is that they can keep coming up with unsubstantiated claims ad infinitum. This is why demanding proof of a negative is not valid science.
I have 32 years experience in providing dental care to patients, in my own state and 6 others. My experience and and understanding of the science of fluoridation, tell me that dental fluorosis is not an issue with this public health initiative. There are drastically more problems created by the dental decay that could be prevented than by the benign, nearly undetectable effects of dental fluorosis which may be associated with fluoridated water.
There is a difference between not having “an open mind” and having the knowledge to understand what is relevant and important to an issue, and what is not.
I wouldn’t change my avatar for the world.
However, I’ve been doing some research on Ian’s writing style and I think Richard make be closer to the truth than even he suspects.
Ian is not human. That’s the easy part. Nobody out there writes like he does. However, he is not a Chopra Random Phrase Generator.
A careful examination of the writing style reveals the shocking truth.
“Cedric science sees all, knows all but too view understand it
open your mind to science & may it bring the next revelation
the point about science is it should always be subject to review and new hypothesis’”
Ian again I find it hard to decipher your text.
A simple comma.
Is it Cedric [S]cience sees all, knows all? (quite an cool name I think!)
or
Cedric, science sees all, knows all?
I guess the latter.
You think science see’s all and knows all?
I will take another stab in the dark and guess that this is a weak attempt at sarcasm. Therefore implying Cedric thinks he knows everything and you are giving him a lesson on the scientific method!
In addition:
The correct spelling is “to” not “too”
What do you mean by revelation? The biblical meaning?
You still insist on using “your” instead of “you’re” !!
Punctuation!!
I find your contributions very confusing and difficult to understand.
Is this intentional? A cunning, clever diversion maybe…
It’s hard to believe this is from a real person.
Stuart’s historical/sociological discussion particularly interesting and apt.
“This is (literally) tailor made for the intellectually lazy.”
I would also add stupid and fanatical
For constancy and for some, perhaps a little irony, it appears I can’t tell my arse from my elbow when I use the word there/their. Apologies.
Is it Cedric [S]cience sees all, knows all? (quite an cool name I think!)
Don’t tempt me. That is a rather cool name.
😉
But back to Ian.
There’s also his small problem of gaily abandoning the convention of starting sentence with a capital letter.
It’s a bit hit-and-miss.
Why would anybody do that? I just don’t get it.
Unless…they had paws. Then it makes sense.
Steve as I pointed out DF is increasing as whole. This means more children (3.6% of them in particular, as the rest are merely cosmetic effects ) are being exposed to higher levels of F.
My questions…when do we alter their exposure to F in someway?
You say
I have 32 years experience in providing dental care to patients, in my own state and 6 others. My experience and and understanding of the science of fluoridation, tell me that dental fluorosis is not an issue with this public health initiative. There are drastically more problems created by the dental decay that could be prevented than by the benign, nearly undetectable effects of dental fluorosis which may be associated with fluoridated water.
Unfortunately our personal experiences aren’t scientific data, and the No of caries through this period as fallen in both F & un F areas
Great to see you’re still plugging away.
No, I am not an English Professor.
I would have thought MY grammatical mistakes may have given that away.
I suppose you are inferring I am getting on a high horse and looking down on you?
No – we all make typo’s, small errors etc (I also recognise and apologise when I do cock up)
I’m not bothered in the slightest with those – I am (and did tell you) that I was concerned with your MEANING.
I am tired of asking what you mean as it is often unclear and sometimes incomprehensible.
I would have thought that this was clear.
I know you read what I write.
The issue is whether you understand what I write – obviously not.
Not only are you unable to express your opinions clearly, you are unable to understand others.
Do you think you are adding anything meaningful to this discussion?
Ian all language, communication and social interaction requires shared understanding. That requires conventions. Even texting requires conventions you )&67! See what I mean? Try listening or participating in a rock band or orchestra that doesn’t use musical convention. Try driving down the road at night in on the wrong side of the road with your head and tail lights reversed as some are reported to have done around Ruatoria. You obviously think without convention is the same as unconventional, something celebrated by some people under certain circumstances. There’s nothing really going on up there is there Ian? Just an empty vessel containing a weak spluttering candle that desperately seizes on the ephemeral. It’s a mistake to puff your self up by adopting a poorly understood pseudoscientific cause. You haven’t the education or critical faculties to judge whether you are backing the right horse or even articulate the arguments (spurious) coherently. I don’t enjoy saying this but I avoid phoneys when I can, and when I cant I let rip. I have no reason to think you aren’t a descent bloke when you being authentic. There a a lot of people like you in blog land Ian. The anonymity allows (so you think) the opportunity to pretend to be something you aren’t. In your poor excuse for cleverness you think you are fooling (stuck up) people. You are only fooling yourself and everyone else can see it. Many are too polite to say so. In principle your behaviour is not that different from cyber bullying and trafficking of obscene material. It’s a form of abuse and a gross insult to people who ordinarily would treat you respectfully. That’s one of the conventions of human intercourse (no I don’t mean sexual).
I suggest you toddle off and stick to one of those mutual congratulatory echo chambers you get most of your (ill understood) material from. Better still get outside and take the dog for a walk or mow the lawns.
If any of our kids performed we would just shunt them out the back door and ignore them until they apologised. Must have worked. One Phd, one pending and a major in philosophy. All outstanding in their own ways.
Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that
If you truly have an issue of understanding on the points just say so
Obviously your theory on the anti F brigade also applies to to the pro camp as well What was it bait & switch?
Hey you are pro F are you not?
Its been so long since I have seen a post referring to the matter in hand
As for putting my mother on …she died but you couldn’t know that could you ?
In fact she would be embarrassed by your criticism!
Enough said
Time to move back to the subject which was????????
I think everybody has forgotten
Ian, you asked my opinion on dental fluorosis. That’s what I gave you. I didn’t present it as scientific fact. Mild dental fluorosis is simply a benign effect that antifluoridationists are trumpeting as a major disorder for the lack of anything else that can be credibly attached to fluoride at 0.7 ppm. Once that becomes clear, they will move down the list to something else. It’s endless.
Ian, this is the last time I will engage with you.
Hey you are pro F are you not?
Answer has already been provided but just for you:
Pro scientific method. Pro community health.
I take seriously and concur with the pro-fluoridation position statements as provided by essentially every medical, community health and scientific organisation on the planet.
Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that
Translation: “I have no intention of applying myself to improve my performance in this area”.
Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that…..
So we just have to put up with wasting our time trying to guess what you mean because you’re too lazy and incompetent to do better?
Hmm, no.
Asking you to write coherent sentences in basic English is being very reasonable. If you can’t do that then we can’t communicate. You are wasting our time. It’s more than a little bit rude.
We shouldn’t have to nursemaid you.
This isn’t remedial school.
I take seriously and concur with the pro-fluoridation position statements as provided by essentially every medical, community health and scientific organisation on the planet.
Seconded.
Fluoridation is a non-issue. It’s been a non-issue for many decades.
There is no reason for us to reject the scientific consensus.
Certainly not because of someone on the internet.
It’s like the moon landings.
We concur that the moon landings happened just like every scientific community on the planet. NASA and all the rest are a reliable source of information.
Some guy showing up on the internet with some aged talking point about flags waving in a vaccuum is not going to be enough to make us change our position.
Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.
I’ve been busy and just scrolled by past a bunch of posts which did not make sense and came to yours where you said,
his is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.
“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”
Well, what about this study….
“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”
Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Apr;36(2):e83-8. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
Christopher.
If you carefully review the difference between the studies, you will immediately see that the two studies are not comparing the same things. Douglas has a vested interest in protecting fluoridation and fluoride. So what is the easiest way to discredit someone else’s research? Water down the numbers. The solution to the harm is dilution. Dilute the numbers and they no longer become statistically significant. Douglas did not look at specific age groups for risk but hid those ages of most risk among all children and adolescence.
A clever devious dishonest method of perpetuating the fluoride is safe myth.
I think you have mistaken Levy et al (and associated political conspiracies) for Douglass.
The idea that Levy et al was trying to discredit the earlier Bassin study based on personal politics is therefore invalid.
So what other reason’s would you have not to accept this study?
Irrespective of differing design/method, how do you refute the conclusion that;
“…suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
Interesting article from Journal of the American Dental
Association , Volume 23, page 568, Ap ril, 1936 , titled
Fluorine In Relation To Bone And Tooth Development
by Floyd DeEDS, Ph.D
Worth a read
Ian, if that article was, in your opinion, interesting, why could you not comment on it? And if it is worth a read what about a link? Where did you go find it in line?
Of have you just been searching to through old journals in a library?
Why am I polite Stuart?
Bloody good question. Considering Bill chooses to ignore simple questions, and those he does answer he makes simple mistakes.
As for the arguments put forward by the “anti’s”, I am continually amazed at the truly stupid stupid responses.
There is one mindless idiot who, with such dogged persistence makes Forrest Gump look like Bertrand Russell – he insists reviewing pre WW2 material!
There are those who perhaps like the above example know what they say is stupid, but insist on “stirring the pot”, not realising at how sad it is to spend so much time and effort dredging up rubbish to validate their own stupidity.
There are countless examples of simple questions being ignored.
There are countless examples of answered questions being repeatedly asked
There are Conspiracy Theorists of all flavour and strength.
There are armchair internet experts who know better than cutting edge scientists.
There is a very small vocal minority of “experts” that either subscribe to a conspiracy viewpoint or have a vested interest in selling books, public speaking, subscriptions etc
These experts dodge simple questions; making errors that are so stupid these must be surely intentional.
None of the “experts” have been able to answer Richard’s Mechanism for Failure or my “So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
None.
NONE.
Why? Because there is no systemic failure to be found.
The very nature of the scientific method guards against this.
If we put the fluoride issue on the backburner for a second and just weigh up the level of crazy and stupid on each side…hey, you probably wouldn’t even need to weigh them…just a fleeting glance at the quantities would suffice.
I’m sure you could make a reasonably accurate estimate as to “clinical” significance.
And if you spent time to cleverly design an experiment, you could probably wheedle out those sneaky Machiavellian co-determinants of crazy and stupid.
Those of you in the “Anti” camp, can’t you see this?
Or do you simply say to yourself “Nope, not me….you’re bound to get a few of them in any group?”
But…it is more than just a few isn’t it?
C’mon now…..be honest….
Ken’s latest response to Paul’s questions is fascinating to me.
Ken’s major argument is that Paul brings up too many points and apparently Ken does not have time to respond to all of them, i.e. Gish gallop of arguments and questions. I think obvious scientific questions and points were presented and proponents using police powers to fluoridate everyone need to have answers rather than hide from the questions. Evading basic fundamental questions of science is not Gish gallop.
Just two questions Ken. I hope one question does not consist of Gish gallop.
To a more fundamental concern. Why do good scientists disagree? Probably many reasons. In the fluoridation controversy, may I suggest good scientists put different weight on different points.
1. Jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction, charged by Law, to approve the safety and efficacy of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease?
a. Sodium Fluoride (silicofluorides) fit within the classification of highly toxic substances, poison (less than 50 mg/Kg body weight causes violent sickness or death). Of course we dilute fluoride, but laws do not reflect dilution but intent of use. Jurisdiction for legal oversight of substances intended to prevent disease are determined by law. All state and federal laws I have seen in every country I have looked, define toxic substances such as poisons in similar ways. By law, highly toxic poisons such as fluoride are exempt from poison laws based on intent of use as pesticide or drug when regulated under pesticide or drug laws. No other exemptions are listed that I’ve seen. None. Either fluoridation is a drug or poison or pesticide. No exception.
b. No dispute, fluoride is added with the intent to prevent dental caries. The Federal agency (FDA CDER) in charge of drugs agrees fluoride when used with the intent to prevent disease, is a drug. Federal agency in charge of water (EPA in the USA) agrees they have no jurisdiction and are prohibited by law from adding fluoride to water with the intent to prevent disease in man or animals.
Ken or anyone, please explain who you think has jurisdiction over the safety and efficacy of substances used with the intent to prevent disease in humans. Please provide a law, letter, or communication from that regulatory agency that they have jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.
To circumvent laws in the USA, proponents of fluoridation turn to the least scientifically aware, the non scientific elected officials and voters to determine the complex scientific controversy over safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Makes no legal, scientific or ethical sense.
Bill, you ignore the fact that Connett and his crowd have never had legal success arguing their claim the fluoride is a drug. I commented on this in my precious article and pointed out your use of this arguments was a matter of semantics and handwaving. The fact that you have no legal success to point to is very telling.
As for Gish gallop – it is a tactical approach used by creationists and similar. They have no intention if discussing any question in detail and love on to the next as fast as possible.
I think we have discussed a whole range of issues in this exchange. You have not pointed to anything I avoid.
I have to laugh at your claim that proponents of fluoridation “turn to the least scientifically aware.” Isn’t this exactly what Connett and his activist organisation are doing. Using cherry picked science to provide a sciency flavour to their claim? Don’t hey descend on clinics and water authorities with their pseudoscience? Are they not claim theta they are the experts when the even mixing up thinks like sodium fluoride and silica fluorides? And don’t they make use of referendums when they think it will go their way?
Experience surely shows your arguments do make legal sense – you never have success in the courts. As for scientific sense – well we are debating those aspects in this exchange. Paul made large diversions into irrelevant stuff in his last contribution, but I think people can and should make their own judgment. I have noticed that this exchange seems to be upsetting local anti-fluoridation activists no end. As for ethical sense – I have written quite a bit on the ethics of this question during the exchange. Unfortunately Paul’s concept of the ethics (and apparently your’s too) does not go beyond his obsession with fluoride as a drug. Something the courts have already ruled on.
Hi Bill,
Good to see you’re back.
Not good to see that you’re making mistakes again.
I won’t restate my questions….just scroll up a few posts for one of them. It’s not difficult.
But here is one I and several others have asked to no avail…
“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
As for evidence for stupid responses. There is plenty of evidence peppered throughout this blog. Don’t ask me to provide evidence, you can read.
Or do you endorse every stupid response here?
As for jurisdiction.
I have answered you before which authorities in NZ have jurisdiction and the relevant legislation. The fact that you ask again shows that you either not reading or intentionally ignoring what is written. Both options exhibit a high level of flippancy.
You seem to cling to the idea that Fluoride at .07ppm is a medicine. This definition is yours and is shared by many anti fluoridationists.
The EPA has complete regulatory authority over mineral additives to water. Whether you agree or not, the EPA has full jurisdiction over fluoride added to water at 0.7 ppm. That is a fact. If you have a problem with that, then go argue your case with the EPA.
You and Paul seem to be under the mistaken assumption that you may make your own laws, according to your own personal ideologies, and everyone should abide by your ” decision” that fluoride is a “drug”, because you say it is.
Again, the courts have made themselves clear on this. Your argument has been rejected time and time again. You don’t like their rulings so you simply attempt to paint the legal process as being “the least scientific”.
The fact is, that no matter how hard you and Paul wish for it to be a “drug”, fluoride at 0.7 ppm is just an ion identical to that ion which already exists in water. By your logic, our water is already “drugged”. If you demand extensive testing of the fluoride ion added with HFA, then you are demanding extensive testing of the same ion which humans have been ingesting in water since time began.
If you want to attempt this time worn argument yet once again in court, feel free. But, given that the courts have not been taken in by this antifluoridationist gambit before, I don’t like your chances. Other than that, unless you and Paul think you can somehow circumvent the legal process and redefine the law to your liking, you’ll just have to live with reality……adding a minuscule few parts per million more of a fluoride ion identical to that fluoride ion already existing in the water, does not magically turn it into a “drug” requiring totally unnecessary, extensive testing.
As for Gish gallop – it is a tactical approach used by creationists and similar. They have no intention if discussing any question in detail and love on to the next as fast as possible.
Bill, the Gish Gallop is a debate tactic.
It’s well known and it’s very dishonest. Paul is guilty of it.
You don’t seem to be able to bring yourself to acknowledge that simple fact.
Ken has spelt it out nice and clear.
Evading basic fundamental questions of science is not Gish gallop.
Just two questions Ken. I hope one question does not consist of Gish gallop.
Pretending that you still don’t know what a Gish Gallop is will not help you.
A Gish Gallop is very easy to spot once you are aware of how the tactic works.
It’s not the same as “evading basic fundamental questions of science”.
There are even short and simple videos to help the general public understand what’s actually going on.
You can shove your fingers in your ears and go “LALALALALALALA” as much as you like but it won’t make Paul’s Gish Gallop magically go away.
The internet is a wonderful thing.
You find all sorts of interesting stuff.
Bill, can I trust you?
Are you…sciencey?
You’ve done your research, right? And you have degrees. And you have a white doctor’s gown. Plus there’s all that dental equipment behind you lending you that air of authority. Also, I couldn’t help but notice the water flowing from taps as you were talking. That would only happen if you were telling the trooth.
The “won’t somebody think of the children” moment was a nice touch.
It’s a curious anomoly you’ve found.
Toothpaste.
Says it’s a drug right there on the back of the tube.
And that cup of water is simply filled with fluoride.
Yet “they” don’t protect the public from such a criminal act of putting toxins in our water.
Oh the shame of it.
(It’s a real shock, gasp, horror moment.)
GIven that you have discovered the anomoly that brings down the whole house of cards and anyone watching your example can quickly see the anomoly too….then what’s really going on with “them”?
What’s the mechanism?
“Of course we dilute fluoride, but laws do not reflect dilution but intent of use”
You are clearly wrong here.
Laws? What laws?
Be specific man. Drug laws? Food laws? Drinking Water laws? Underpant Laws?
I will help you out and in doing so show why you have made such a silly mistake.
I will use “Drugs” as an example.
Drugs are also regulated on the basis of harm. Many drugs are not regulated because they pose little or negligible harm. Dilution necessarily reduces the preponderance of harm.
For example, you are able to purchase and drink as many bottles of caffeinated coffee or coke as you like.
Alcohol is more harmful, therefore it is more regulated, as are many other substances.
But before I go on…are you wrong here Bill? Have you made yet another mistake? A mistake in the application of the Law maybe?
So…. let’s for a second pretend Bill gets his way and we say fluoridated water is a “drug” (ignoring the absurdities that this entails).
What evidence do you have to show that 0.7ppm fluoridate water is harmful?
You need to come up with some extraordinary evidence…it has been 68 years…
uh….before you start. Could I ask that you use mainstream peer reviewed scientific studies that show actual harm.
Not anecdotes
Nor any pre world war 2 studies
No secondary sources.
No pretend, made up harm
No irrelevant studies.
No disregarding relevant information
No pictures of Horses
No obfuscation
Should be simple for you. A man with lots of letters after his name and the world of experience behind you …go on, you can do it
“…surely he can concede that the purpose of fluoridation is to treat people as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink? And if he is willing to concede that then doesn’t treating people – at least in some countries – require that those treated have the right to informed consent to that treatment? This is not just about semantics it is about fundamental human rights”
Yet again, Connet pretends that 0.7ppm fluoridate water is a medicine.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Semantic’s are important….. if you want to use words.
And Connet is using words…isn’t he?
But…
Abracadabra….Fluoridated water is a Fish…therefore it must be regulated under the Fisheries Act 1996
or Hocus Pocus it’s a House so it must be regulated by the Resource Management Act 1991
Or perhaps it’s neither and should be regarded as what it is, so we should look at;
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116 is.
On appeal from the Court of Appeal, the Judicial Committee held that;
“The water of Lower Hutt is no doubt pure in its natural state but it is very deficient in one of the natural constituents normally to be found in water in most parts of the world. The addition of fluoride adds no impurity and the water remains not only water but pure water and it becomes a greatly improved and still natural water containing no foreign elements.”
As far as I am aware this remains binding precedent under NZ law.
If Connet, Bill or anyone else who thinks this is not correct please cite the relevant Statute or case law.
Laws do not reflect intent of use, the regulate because of outcomes, harms.
So what’s the ” intent of use” Bill. Poison out “precious bodily fluids?”, “lower our IQs?”, “turn us into baby devouring communists?”, (an early version of this madness”, or a simple public health measure to minimise preventable tooth decay?
You defend adding small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium – oh, and yes, a lot of fluorosilicic acid – to our water, which people will drink for their entire lives in any amount, regardless of any pre-existing health problems they may have. And you are saying that is absolutely safe for everyone. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.
The burden of proof is on you to prove all these chemicals working together are safe.
You fluoridationists defend fluoridating water with a toxic waste grade of fluoride even though there are pharmaceutical grade sources of fluoride available if you really want to consume it, such as getting a Luride prescription, or swallowing some of your toothpaste.
And some of your are dentists!!! A dentist in his right mind will oppose drinking water fluoridation 1) because CDC and NRC say we are getting too much total fluoride – even if a little is good, and 2) if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.
And you champion this fluoridation fraud just so you can allegedly reduce caries by maybe 25% or 10% or maybe not at all? When there are other good ways to kill streptoccocus mutans, such as putting an antibiotic mouthwash in your Water Pick and killing those bacteria directly? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antibacterial+mouthwash
Yes, fluoride does kill bacteria, but so too does a sledge hammer. Would you use a sledge hammer on your teeth?
Fluoridation is quackery of the first order, down with tetraethyl lead, DDT, nuclear power, and Roundup. It operates like a true-believer religion. It is a big lie, a mass marketing fraud, a group hallucination. You guys are trapped in a maze where the exits are blocked by false beliefs.
And your response to anything that disagrees with your fluoride religion is mockery.
Yes, we all realize your financial interests in keeping this issue alive, with your constant references to your “class action” website. But, could you please at least do a little research on the issue from reliable sources before making a complete fool out of yourself with such a blatant display of ignorance of the facts of fluoridation? It’s hard to find one accurate statement in your ridiculous rant. You are supposedly a professional. Act like one.
Your failure to answer the question is not an answer and a stunning admission you don’t know or don’t want to admit who has jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. You and I have a right to determine the safety and efficacy of substances for ourselves. In this case someone is using police powers to force others to ingest fluoride. Who has that power and authority to determine whether the substance is scientifically safe and effective. In all other cases of substances used with the intent to treat/prevent disease in humans, the national drug regulatory agency has jurisdiction. And in all countries (that I’m aware of), the drug regulatory authorities have rejected the ingestion of fluoride for the prevention of caries because the science is incomplete. Not one prospective randomized controlled trial. And those probably could not be done because no human research authority would give an OK.
You fear the truth because fluoride is a highly toxic poison and Federal law, Congress and the FDA CDER (and Australian drug regulatory authority) have been consistent and clear that fluoride is a drug.
Several times courts have ruled fluoridation is not supported by science and not legal. Indeed, some state courts have supported fluoridation, but your claim all court cases have supported fluoridation is simply flawed. But then I am not a lawyer, so back to my question. Who has jurisdiction to determine the safety and efficacy of fluoridation? The CDC says not them. The EPA says not them. The FDA says they do and you apparently say they don’t.
Ken, what national regulatory agency has jurisdiction?
To your second point of Gish gallop debating tactic. Gish gallop, as you know, is used when there is not enough time to respond in an oral debate. Gish gallop does not apply to this situation. This is a written debate and there is no time limit. Your excuse and failure to respond to scientific points in writing by hide behind an oral debate tactic is simply bogus and shows a lack of scientific evidence. Evasion is not an answer.
So if there are too many points, lets reset the rules of this debate and narrow the topic to one of any one of the points of concern which have been raised. First is Jurisdiction. There are government agencies set up with policies and experts to determine efficacy and safety of substances. You simply ignore jurisdiction.
Then we need to answer:
“Total Fluoride Exposure.” How much fluoride are people ingesting and inhaling and exposed to? Total fluoride exposure range, high and low for individuals?
Then we need to determine how much total fluoride is optimal? In other words, how much are we getting and how much do we need? Then we need to determine what is safe?
I know, I know, you have not answered my first question of Jurisdiction and now I’m expanding and adding the second question of total exposure. Does two questions mean I’m another Gish galloper?
If two questions are too much, then lets go back to the first:
Ken, please fill in the blank: “The government agency for determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation is _________________.”
You seem to pop in and out of reality –
Great to see you back. You seem a little upset!?
Perhaps you could finally answer my question…you know the one I asked you on 3rd December. I am particularly interested in how you think Big Business is able to percolate and coordinate such a globally successful conspiracy.
I have copied my previous question so you needn’t have the difficulty associated with scrolling up.
“Hi jamesrobertdeal
Thank you for your reply
You did not give me a scientific mechanism. You gave me a (conspiracy) theory.
Don’t take this in a pejorative way – conspiracies do occur – but I would hazard to guess just not as often as you like to think.
You gave me a long history peppered with many unsubstantiated facts (which I do not know whether true or not).
Could you please distil it down into a short few pithy sentences, omitting irrelevant details? – parsimony is key to any mechanism, especially on the scale that you are operating.
However, one glaring problem that I see is you centre your theory on the USA.
I understand you live there, however how do you account for pro-fluoridation positions held in other countries, for example NZ?”
It’s early in the morning here Bill, don’t get your panties all in a bunch.
Did you not read my post…it’s the one with my name on it just a few above yours…it should answer your questions.
Somehow the facts seem not to be sinking in to you. So, let me reiterate them for you.
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS FULL JURISDICTION, OVERSIGHT AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER FLUORIDE ADDED TO WATER AT THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.
THE FDA HAS NO JURISDICTION OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER FLUORIDE ADDED TO WATER AT THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.
From page 1 of the 2006 NRC Report:
“Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is required to establish exposure standards for contaminants
in public drinking-water systems that might cause any adverse effects on
human health. These standards include the maximum contaminant level
goal (MCLG), the maximum contaminant level (MCL), and the secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL). The MCLG is a health goal set at a
concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected to occur and
the margins of safety are judged “adequate.” The MCL is the enforceable
standard that is set as close to the MCLG as possible, taking into consider-
ation other factors, such as treatment technology and costs. For some con-
taminants, EPA also establishes an SMCL, which is a guideline for managing drinking water for aesthetic, cosmetic, or technical effects.”
From page 2 of the 2006 NRC Report:
“On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate
independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of
2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect
children and others from adverse health effects. The committee was asked to consider the relative contribution of various fluoride sources (e.g., drinking water, food, dental-hygiene products) to total exposure. The committee was also asked to identify data gaps and to make recommendations for future research relevant to setting the MCLG and SMCL for fluoride.
Now, if the jurisdictional oversight and regulatory authority over water fluoridation is not to your liking, then you will need to address that with the EPA.
Now, if you want information on total daily fluoride intake from all sources, the CDC and the IOM have just what you need. Access those sites.
Ok my queestion to you is what does the American agencies have to do with NZ?? we have our own laws and govt departments .No wonder you wont get an answer
Bill,
You really seem to have a thing with the word Jurisdiction, as though it has magical powers.
To answer you YET AGAIN.
This will be the last time I repeat this for you.
In NZ, three organisations are concerned with the provision of safe and wholesome drinking-water to any particular community in New Zealand, one at the local level, one regional and one at the national level.
The Health (Drinking-Water) Amendment Act 2007 is the primary legislative tool that promotes adequate supplies of safe and wholesome drinking water from all drinking-water supplies.
Under this Act, you will find the relevant organizations responsible for public water supplies.
I have given you case law specific to fluoridated water. This may also be used as a primary source of law.
I will give you the case reference again;
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116
But back to your question.
“Jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction, charged by Law, to approve the safety and efficacy of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease?”
This sentence does not make sense in several ways.
1) “Charged by Law” is a redundancy and adds no meaning to this sentence. It does however indicate that you are attempting to make your question sound “legal” in a vain attempt at giving it added credibility. However it simply makes you look like an arse (ass).
2) Legislators, have the power to make laws under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (perhaps legislative supremacy in the USA?). With regard to laws involving “substances”, these Laws can be both prescriptive and proscriptive. Before a Law is enacted it may go through a consultative process whereby experts in the relevant field have an opportunity to comment on issues of safety and/or harm. Once it’s law….that’s it.
3) “…safety and efficacy of any substance “. The question is nonspecific. There are many substances that are regulated. Which ones do you mean? Again, look at the respective substance and the law surrounding its regulation. Regarding fluoridated water, I have cited you primary and authoritative case law directly on point. I can copy it again for you but I fear you will just pretend you haven’t seen it or pretend it is not relevant.
4) Stuart quite rightly hit the nail on the head. “Intent to prevent disease”.
You really don’t know what you are talking about do you? Substances are incapable of intent so I guess you mean the person administering them. Again you need to look at the substance and then look at the Law to see how it is regulated. Therein you may find the Holy Grail you oft seek.
So….quite apart from having an uncanny ability for constructing nonsensical sentences, it is my humble opinion Bill, that you don’t know your arse from your elbow when it comes to the Law.
You blunder around throwing words haphazardly about with confidence of charlatan and the precision of a drunk cabbage.
More worrying perhaps is that you persist with these errors despite these being shown to repeatedly and clearly.
It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is unable to learn from his mistakes.
Doh…
Or are you doing this on purpose?….(sinister drum roll)
Sorry, guys. Like every supremely arrogant American worth his salt, I forget from time to time that the sun doesn’t revolve around the United States. My comment to Bill was in regard to US law. However, you have him well covered with NZ jurisdictional law in regard to fluoridation.
I find it very informative that you lend your experience/expertise.
The complexities in the USA are obviously greater,,, but when you boil the fluoridated water in either country it appears you still get a lot of hot air!
In Canada’s justice system fluoride was ruled as “compulsory preventive medication” and was never appealed by the Government of Canada.
Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village), [1957] S.C.R. 569:
If the purpose of adding fluorides to drinking water is to prevent or reduce dental cavities, as Health Canada admits In response to Petition 299, those fluorides then become drugs or medication. This is not just an opinion but the basis for the Supreme Court of Canada judgment reached by justices J. Rand and J. Cartwright. Health Canada’s opinion on the nature and purpose of the fluorides added to drinking water does not seem sustainable in the least. The nature of the fluorides is determined by their purpose. If the purpose of adding those fluorides to drinking water were to treat the water to make it potable, they would not be drugs and would be legal as long as they met applicable American National Standards Institute/National Sanitation Foundation (ANSI/NSF) standards. However, this is by no means the case: their purpose is to prevent dental cavities. Justices J. Rand and J. Cartwright accordingly reached the following conclusion:
But it is not to promote the ordinary use of water as a physical requisite for the body that fluoridation is proposed. That process has a distinct and different purpose; it is not a means to an end of wholesome water for water’s function but to an end of a special health purpose for which a water supply is made use of as a means (p. 572).
Its purpose and effect are to cause the inhabitants of the metropolitan area, whether or not they wish to do so, to ingest daily small quantities of fluoride, in the expectation which appears to be supported by the evidence that this will render great numbers of them less susceptible to tooth decay. The water supply is made use of as a convenient means of effecting this purpose. In pith and substance the by-law relates not to the provision of a water supply but to the compulsory preventive medication of the inhabitants of the area (p. 580, emphasis added).
Fluoridation thus constitutes “compulsory preventive medication.” As this judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was never appealed by the Government of Canada, it must have force of law and, in our view, Health Canada’s opinion that fluorides added to drinking water are not drugs has no legal or judicial value.
Bill, I think your question about “jurisdiction” has been adequately answered by others. It is not a question that interests me and seems to be a diversion.
However, you do say that several courts have ruled fluoridation not supported by science and nôt legal. Well, could you provide these instance please? With some sort of reference and link. So far I have been unable to find any so I await support for your claim with baited breath, hoping to learn something.
I think you should check out the meaning of Gish gallop – it is not what you think. It has nothing to do with time restrictions at all. It is just a way of avoiding a rational discussion by continually diverting , or attempting to divert, onto other ill defined areas. Actually, putting a question on jurisdiction to me seems like a good example as it diverts away from my point about ethics being wider than the semantics and handwaving involved in defining fluoride as a drug.
Thank you for your question about the origin of fluoridation and how it could go on for so long and be believed in by so many scientists if it is not safe, effective, and legal.
The origin of fluoridation is outlined in Bryson’s book and on my site at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham. Making aluminum for planes and refining uranium for bombs produced a lot of excess fluoride. Alcoa had connections in the US Public Health Service. Alcoa had a lot of sodium fluoride to off load. Fluoridation started in 1945 on an experimental basis, pushed by Alcoa and the Public Health Service, with no approval by any federal or state agency. The experiments were not completed, and fluoridation just kept growing, based on the myth that it was safe and effective. It is slightly effective but not safe. There was not enough sodium fluoride to meet the demand, so fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer production was used and soon became the primary fluoridation material. Other countries followed the US, primarily the English speaking countries.
Most medical doctors and dentists do not study the science behind fluoridation in depth. They just accept the word of other white coats that it is safe, effective, and legal. They too assume that because so many other white coats say it is safe and effective that it is. Doctors are dosing their patients with all kinds of drugs which turn out to be unsafe. Vioxx for example. Doctors endorsed smoking for example. Just because a large number of people believe something does not make it so, even if they have advanced degrees.
FDA and EPA would not formally approve fluoridation, so they passed the buck to NSF. Read about the NSF fraud at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/nsf. NSF is a trade association, and the producers of fluoridation materials sit on its board. NSF does not perform the 20 tox studies required by its own guidelines. Fluoridation is legal only using materials which “comply” with NSF guidelines. The tox studies are not done and so the materials do not “comply” and so fluoridation is not legal.
Your question implies a belief on your part that because fluoridation has gone on for so long, it must therefore be safe, effective, and legal. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.
Just because many people believe the big lie does not make it true.
You defend adding small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium – oh, and yes, a lot of fluorosilicic acid – to our water, which people will drink for their entire lives in any amount, regardless of any pre-existing health problems they may have. And you are saying that is absolutely safe for everyone. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.
The burden of proof is on you to prove all these chemicals working together are safe.
You fluoridationists defend fluoridating water with a toxic waste grade of fluoride even though there are pharmaceutical grade sources of fluoride available if you really want to consume it, such as getting a Luride prescription, or swallowing some of your toothpaste.
And some of your are dentists!!! A dentist in his right mind will oppose drinking water fluoridation 1) because CDC and NRC say we are getting too much total fluoride – even if a little is good, and 2) if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.
And you champion this fluoridation fraud just so you can allegedly reduce caries by maybe 25% or 10% or maybe not at all? When there are other good ways to kill streptoccocus mutans, such as putting an antibiotic mouthwash in your Water Pick and killing those bacteria directly? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antibacterial+mouthwash
Yes, fluoride does kill bacteria, but so too does a sledge hammer. Would you use a sledge hammer on your teeth?
Fluoridation is quackery of the first order, down with tetraethyl lead, DDT, nuclear power, and Roundup. It operates like a true-believer religion. It is a big lie, a mass marketing fraud, a group hallucination. You guys are trapped in a maze where the exits are blocked by false beliefs.
And your response to anything that disagrees with your fluoride religion is mockery.
James at Fluoride Class Action
December 17, 2013
You responded:
Attorney Deal
Yes, we all realize your financial interests in keeping this issue alive, with your constant references to your “class action” website. But, could you please at least do a little research on the issue from reliable sources before making a complete fool out of yourself with such a blatant display of ignorance of the facts of fluoridation? It’s hard to find one accurate statement in your ridiculous rant. You are supposedly a professional. Act like one.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You did not respond to the substance of what I said. You just engaged in mockery what I said. I challenge you to respond paragraph by paragraph with something substantial.
1. Please tell me what the Supreme Court of the Netherlands said about fluoridation?
2. You suggest the courts have ruled on fluoridation. Please provide a reference to the Federal Court ruling that fluoridation is not a drug.
3. Drug Therapy June 1975
The FDA has addressed a ”regulatory letter” to approximately 35 companies marketing combination drugs consisting of fluoride and vitamins. The letter states that these drugs are related to a product (Ernziflur lozenges) for which FDA has withdrawn approval of a new drug application. The NDA for Enziflur was withdrawn because there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling.
The FDA has therefore advised manufacturers of combination fluoride and vitamin preparations that their continued marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.
Ken, if the FDA did not permit fluoride pills via prescription under a doctors direction and patient’s freedom of choice, it is highly unlikely they would permit fluoride in water. But why don’t you ask? Why have proponents failed to even write a letter to the FDA CDER and ask. I did and the FDA CDER said fluoride when used with the intent to prevent disease is a drug. All proponents have to do is get FDA CDER approval and it would take a great load off my mind. At least the drug would be legal. So why haven’t they? Why hasn’t the CDC or Surgeon General or American Dental Association asked the FDA CDER for approval? It would have tremendous strength for proponents if they would simply get a letter from the FDA CDER saying fluoridation is not a drug. I bet they have and NDA for fluoridated water has been denied or applicants were told to withdraw the application.
Ken, please tell us who has jurisdiction over fluoridation.
Christopher,
You are not answering my question. I am asking who has Jurisdiction over determining whether the substance manufactured by the water district (fluoridated water) is effective and safe.
The court case you provide does not answer that question.
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116
Please provide the name of the agency who has jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Not an historic court case of whether it can be done, but what agency has jurisdiction to monitor the science on safety and efficacy. Who has their balls on the line for liability of safety and efficacy and to pay for harm?
Bill, you do understand the Gish gallop – at least instinctively, because that is what you are doing to avoid my question. We are not dicussing pills and cosmetics, but fluoridation of community water supplies. Others have answered your specifically on jurisdiction – as I said it doesn’t interest me and for the life of me I cannot see why you should ask me.
“I am pleased Paul gave such a prominent role to ethics in his last article but disappointed he reduces the ethical aspects to simply his wish to define fluoridated water as a medicine. If that exhausted the ethical aspects the discussion would now be over as no court has accepted this definition in a final way.”
I indicated that was my understanding but invited Paul to give me any examples he was aware of that involved judicial acceptance of his definitions as applied to fluroidation.
I mentioned that a Pennsylvanian anti-fluoridation group ActionaPA.org even laments:
“While the courts have acknowledged that fluoridated chemicals are hazardous, the courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of water fluoridation whenever the courts were asked to rule on the merits of fluoridation or on the right of government to fluoridate. The courts have consistently brushed aside the scientific and ethical matters raised by safe drinking water advocates, while deferring to the opinions of pro-fluoridation state authorities. These decisions have formed a body of case law so one-sided that the courts have allowed this momentum to justify further pro-fluoridation decisions.”
Now, I have asked you the same thing and you seem to want to avoid the question by putting extra ones to me. It is disingeuous to repsond to my question by asking “Please provide a reference to the Federal Court ruling that fluoridation is not a drug.” you were the one who said:
“Several times courts have ruled fluoridation is not supported by science and not legal.”
Do I have to conclude that you cannot back up that claim with any reference and/or link?
While you are back would you please answer Cedric’s question (put earlier but unanswered) as to which vaccinations you consider well tested and which are not.
The question is relevant to the methodology you apply to science and public health. Thank you.
I have looked at US law, Australia law, Canada law and received responses from all of the drug regulatory agencies. You are right, I have not contacted NZ. But lets look at the clear undisputed evidence.
See the top line of links. Click on “Medicines” and then click on “Education and Information” of course you need to read all the links. This is your law, your country and I’m embarrassed having to read to you your own laws. That should have been your job and is still your job.
“Does your product have a therapeutic purpose or do you want to state a therapeutic claim?
If your product has a therapeutic purpose or makes a therapeutic claim then it is a medicine or related product. Go to What do I need to do to sell my medicine in New Zealand? to find out what to do next.”
Christopher, the question you must ask, “Does fluoridation have a therapeutic purpose?” Or are you simply adding fluoride to water to poison people?
“Does your product contain a scheduled ingredient?” Yes, sodium fluoride is a scheduled ingredient. The concentration is not a consideration as to whether the substance fits within the definition of medicine.
If you claim a therapeutic purpose, then fluoridation is a medicine.
Because sodium fluoride is a scheduled ingredient, fluoridation is a medicine.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to gain approval.
Just because a substance is mixed with public water does not exempt it from approval. If so, dilute your cocaine, meth, heroine or any other medicine and that would exempt it from regulatory approval. Obviously that is not true. Just because you dilute the substance does not exempt it from oversight.
Ken,
Your statement regarding the courts is incomplete. Here is a PACE Law review.
I don’t expect you to read each court case, but I think you should agree the courts have not been consistent and there are court cases on both sides of the issue. I can provide more should you desire. http://fluoridation.com/legal.htm
I have given you the relevant legislation. Look it up.
You are confusing jurisdiction with responsibility.
In this Act there are provisions related to responsibilities, duties and …even a whole section on contamination and other relevant offences.
So…if you want balls on the line as you so eloquently put it, look there.
As to my “historic” case, I know you said you are not a lawyer but as common law goes, this case is still authoritative unless overturned by a higher court or legislated against.
This case is relevant unless you can point me to such a case or Act.
…..and you still haven’t answered my questions….just scroll up….
“However, Medsafe has never considered the fluoridation of water to lead to the creation of a medicine. Fluoride is found naturally in water at varying concentrations and water is not supplied for a therapeutic purpose. We consider that the principal use of water and foodstuffs (which contain minerals or fluoride) is dietary and not therapeutic. We therefore do not consider the addition of substances such as chlorine or fluoride, or alum to water to be under the remit of the Medicines Act but rather under the control of other public health and water quality legislation. A similar argument can be used in relation to quinine. While quinine is a medicinal substance, the quinine contained in a gin and tonic, no matter how therapeutic we might think consuming one may be, does not make tonic water (or gin) a medicine. This pragmatic approach to the legislation is clearly what was intended by parliament. Too rigid an interpretation quickly makes everything a potential medicine. After all we drink water to prevent dehydration which is a symptom of a disease state. This kind of over-interpretation of the wording of the legislation is not, and has never been the intention of parliament. Finally while we must accept that fluoride in certain concentrations and formulations is scheduled as a medicine in several schedules within the Medicines Act, the concentrations of fluoride in drinking water are well below the threshold for consideration as a medicine and so would be considered to fall within the controls of other legislation, such as water quality control etc. Fluoride is also an element and it is naturally found in a great many places, the presence of fluoride, or any other element or mineral in an item does not make the item a medicine. After all, lithium can be used as a medicine, but its presence in a lithium battery, or a paint, does not make that product a medicine. I hope this information is useful to you.”
Ken,
These dudes are not interested in any dispassionate appraisal of contrary evidence. The underlying thinking is homeopathic with a good dose of narcissistic immunity.
Bill, I am trying to discourage extensive copypasta here – so your six pages of poorly formatted copy and paste with multiple links was held up in moderation.
Could you please summarise it or out in your own words? I am not worried about the links is is just the extensive copy and paste which I think is disrespectful to others. Especially 6 pages and you didn’t even remove the page numbers!
The contortions you go through in an attempt to “prove” your point are painful.
I have given you the Law as it relates to fluoridation in N.Z.
As I have said many times, unless you can point me to any legal authority that show otherwise then there are NO arguments that you can offer of relevance –End of story.
You said;
“This is your law, your country and I’m embarrassed having to read to you your own laws”
You should be embarrassed. You have directed me to a Ministry of Health website. To use your beloved word, MOH do not have Jurisdiction to enact law. You have tried to lead me on a silly internet goose chase of clicking on this and that.
You have NOT directed me to any Statute, case or legal provision as I have asked you many times now.
Yet again you are making mistakes.
You are attempting to construct a legal argument without any law.
This simply makes you look silly and quite frankly a little crazy.
Okay, sure I’ve already responded to some of this nonsense from you in detail on other sites, but I’ll be glad to do so again since it obviously did not sink in the first time. The links you provide to your own biased website are irrelevant and require no comments.
So….paragraph by paragraph, as you requested:
Paragraph 1. We amaze you. Fine, thank you for sharing that.
Paragraph 2. I don’t defend anything. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, a highly respected regulatory agency of the US government, has established maximum concentration levels (MCL) of safety for all water additives. As an additional level of safety, the EPA mandates that all water additives must meet the stringent Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 mandates that no contaminant in additives can be present at the tap in an amount greater than 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. The barely detectable contaminants in fluoridated water easily meet NSF certification requirements. The listing of these contaminants and their minuscule concentrations may be found:
Paragraph 3. The burden is not on me to “prove” anything. You are the one seeking to profit with class action lawsuits against fluoridation. The burden is on you to prove that there is any problem.
Paragraph 4. First, as far as your recommendation to swallow toothpaste…. with such reckless advice, you might want to be concerned yourself about lawsuits. Toothpaste contains 1200 to 1500 times the fluoride concentration as does fluoridated water.
I’m not sure why you antifluoridationists have such a difficult time in discerning the difference in “pharmaceutical grade fluoride” and HFA.. I have already explained this to you at least once that I can remember. However, yet once again…..
“Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.
The U.S. Pharmacopeia-National Formulary (USP-NF) presents monographs on tests and acceptance criteria for substances and ingredients by manufacturers for pharmaceuticals. The USP 29 NF–24 monograph on sodium fluoride provides no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. That leaves the manufacturer with the responsibility of quality assurance and reporting. Some potential impurities have no restrictions by the USP including arsenic, some heavy metals regulated by the U.S. EPA, and radionuclides.
The USP does not provide specific protection levels for individual contaminants, but tries to establish a relative maximum exposure level of a group of related contaminants. The USP does not include acceptance criteria for fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate.
Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.
AWWA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride.”
——http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#9
Paragraph 5. Fluoridated water does not “leach lead from pipes”.
“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, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Paragraph 6. There is no valid reason for any dentists to oppose the public health initiative of water fluoridation. None that I know, oppose it.
Neither the NRC nor the CDC state that “we are getting too much fluoride”. Cite a valid source for this claim. Your own website does not qualify as a valid source.
Your statement: “if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.” is nonsensical. I have no idea what you mean by this, but in terms of reducing total fluoride intake, fluoridated water only provides 0.7 mg fluoride per liter of water. If anyone sees the need to reduce their total fluoride intake for whatever reason, they may easily obtain non-fluoridated bottled water, they may observe the fluoride content of the foods they eat, they may observe the content of the beverages they drink, and they may use non-fluoridated dental products.
Paragraph 7. You obviously have absolutely no idea of the mechanism by which fluoride prevents dental decay. Go read up on this mechanism and then I’ll be glad to discuss it with you when you can do so intelligently. Until then, you are wasting my time.
Paragraph 8. No I would not use a sledge hammer on my teeth, for whatever relevance that may be to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. Would you? Never mind, don’t answer that, you’ve embarrassed yourself enough here already.
Paragraph 9. “fluoridation is quackery, blah, blah, blah,” Nothing but delusional conspiracy nonsense on your part. I’m not a psychiatrist so cannot help you with that.
Paragraph 10. No, my response to “anything that disagrees with my fluoridation religion” is not mockery. My mockery is reserved for those lazy individuals who lack the intelligence and wherewithal to seek accurate information on the issue of water fluoridation from reliable, respected, and primary sources of information.
James Robert Attorney Deal is back!
Yay.
So James…
You said:
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
I replied :
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
And then you ran away.
This happened on the 3rd of December on this very thread.
Still waiting here.
Your question implies a belief on your part that because fluoridation has gone on for so long, it must therefore be safe, effective, and legal. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.
Actually, that is a conspiracy.
It works for any other science denial topic too.
“Your question implies a belief on your part that because evolution and biological studies has gone on for so long, it must therefore be real. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
“Your question implies a belief on your part that because the moon landings were so long ago, it must therefore have actually happened. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
“Your question implies a belief on your part that because climate science has gone on for so long, it must therefore be real. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
You seem to be a tad hazy on the details on who “they” are and the “how” part.
The problem with hanky-panky is that the more people that are involved and the longer it goes on for, the more likely it is for it to be discovered.
The 50’s were a very long time ago.
After all that time, you have nothing but vague handwaving.
The nuts and bolts of the operation are suspiciously absent.
I am not worried about the links is is just the extensive copy and paste which I think is disrespectful to others. Especially 6 pages and you didn’t even remove the page numbers!
Why do they think that’s a good idea?
Cut-and-pasting six pages?
Holy-krazy-monkey-on-a-stick!
On what planet is that considered to be sane behaviour?
No James, I am leaving your last comment in moderation. It is simply an advertisement for you class action web page without any real content. Why not present your argument and stop the aggression. We don’t want the discussion to deteriorate in this way.
Fluoridationists completely ignore the effect that fluorosilicic acid and the lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium in it have on the growing embryo and fetus. I have proposed an experiment to test the harm to the embryo and fetus:
A Proposed Experiment:
To Test Whether a Fluoride-Free Diet Improves Fertility
by James Robert Deal, J.D., and Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
November 17, 2013
There is good reason to suspect that the consumption of so-called fluoride by would-be parents has a negative impact on the developing embryo and fetus and can result in early embryo and fetal death, miscarriage, stillbirth, lower IQ, and a general reduction in reproductive success – as discussed below.
Some 90% of fluoridation is done with fluorosilicic acid – which contains not only fluoride ion but also silicic acid, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, selenium, barium, and thallium, which is slightly radioactive. These contaminants may be as harmful to the growing fetus as is the fluoride ion itself.
A reproductive clinic is uniquely situated to run an experiment which would confirm or deny the following hypothesis: Consumption of fluoride by would-be parents has a negative impact on the developing fetus and on reproductive success.
The experiment would compare the reproductive success of those instructed to avoid fluoride intake with those not instructed to avoid fluoride. Later we will return to the specifics of the design of the experiment. First however, we will discuss the basis for our hypothesis that fluoridation has a negative impact on fertility.
The Harvard School of Public Health conducted a study entitled “Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. It can be accessed at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/. The study concludes:
[C]hildren in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean [senior author of the Harvard Study] says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
Critics of the Harvard study incorrectly claim that the Chinese studies only looked at towns and cities where fluoride levels were much higher than in tap water in the United States. However, a Wichita newspaper investigated the charge, interviewed Grandjean, and wrote the following:
The truth, Grandjean writes, is that “only 4 of 27 studies” in the Harvard review used the high levels that the Wichita paper described, and “clear differences” in IQ “were found at much lower exposures.” See: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/wichita_eagle/
In 2006 the National Research Council released its study entitled “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards”. This book is available free online. Simply run a Google search for “NRC 2006 Fluoride”.
See particularly chapter 6, which is entitled “ Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Fluoride,” beginning at page 181. At page 192 the NRC says:
In an ecological study of U.S. counties with drinking-water systems reporting fluoride concentrations of at least 3 mg/L (Freni 1994), a decreased fertility rate was associated with increasing fluoride concentrations. See: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=192
At page 193 the NRC says:
There is wide variation with some correlation between fluoride concentration in maternal serum and cord blood, indicating that fluoride readily crosses the placenta. … Therefore, potential toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus in the setting of high maternal ingestion of fluoride has been a concern evaluated in both animal and humans. See: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=193.
In her study Dr. Mullinex gave fluoride to rats at levels which produce the same blood fluoride level as found in humans. Fluoride was given to pregnant females and newborns. There was a measurable negative effect on both. The adult rats became more lethargic and were affected cognitively, while newborns were more hyperactive and affected cognitively.
Dr. Mullinex was later asked to advise the US Army as to whether it should fluoridate the drinking water at Fort Detrick. In that letter she explained her previous study. She said:
[C]hronic exposure to fluoride (1 ppm) in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal and cerebrovasculature integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues (8). Another study found that fluoride in drinking water of rats decreased membrane lipids important to proper brain function (9). Moreover, the latest studies have shown that fluoride accumulates in human and animal pineal glands where it impairs melatonin production (10, 11), a finding critical when it is considered that melatonin is an agent that protects the central nervous system from radiation by scavenging free radicals (12). Finally, there is a recent study published which reports that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increase levels of lead in children’s blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities ( 13). …
In 1993 while studying the neurotoxicity associated with the treatments of childhood leukemia, we demonstrated that the fluorinated steroid dexamethasone disrupted behavior in rats to a greater degree than did its non fluorinated counterpart prednisolone (14,15). This finding prompted a clinical study of children treated for leukemia, where it was found that the fluorinated steroid was more detrimental to IQ than the nonfluorinated steroid, in particular reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory deficits were greater (16). …
In summary, my opinion is that there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit.
Dr. Mullinex and her study were criticized by fluoridation defenders who pointed out that the concentration of sodium fluoride administered to the rats was much higher than what is found in the fluoridated tap water which humans drink. However, rats absorb much less fluoride through their alimentary canal than do humans, and so they must be given more fluoride to drink for the rats to end up with the same blood-fluoride level as humans drinking fluoridated tap water.
Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D., and president of Fluoride Alert, has this to say:
Fluoride ion interferes with DNA repair in both cell and tissue studies. … In addition to cell and tissue studies, a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans has also been reported. (See citations at http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons.)
If fluoride ion interferes with DNA repair in children and adults, then because it readily passes through the placenta, it can be assumed that it will do the same within the growing embryo and fetus.
Dr. Connett also says:
At the biochemical level it is highly plausible that fluoride would be both a cancer initiator and a promoter. By forming a strong hydrogen bond with the amide function (Emsley, 1981) it could well interfere with base pair recognition so critical to DNA repair, replication, transcription and translation (protein synthesis). Furthermore fluoride is known to inhibit a number of enzymes which have magnesium as a co-factor (Waldbot, 1978). A number of enzymes involved in nucleic acid biochemistry have magnesium as a co-factor. The magnesium by forming a complex with the phosphate group helps to steer nucleotides into the exact location for assembly and disassembly. It is highly plausible that fluoride would dislocate this mechanism so critical for nucleic acid activity. It is known that fluoride inhibits the enzymes involved in DNA repair in test tubes. See: http://fluoridealert.org/content/a-critique-of-the-york-review-by-paul-connett-phd/
Dr. Connett continues:
There also is concern about the genotoxicity of fluoride and its possible role in the cause of increased levels of infant mortality and Down’s Syndrome births. The West Midlands Perinatal Audit reported that the city had “significantly higher” rates of stillbirth and neonatal mortality than the average for England and Wales.
Could this be attributable to fluoride? In an as-yet unpublished paper, Ian Packington, a toxicologist on the advisory panel of the National Pure Water Association (an anti-fluoride campaign group), records that in the years 1990-92 perinatal deaths in the fluoridated parts of the West Midlands were 15 percent higher than in neighboring unexposed areas such as Shropshire and Herefordshire. From an analysis of Department of Health statistics, he concluded that in the period 1983-86 cases of Down’s Syndrome were 30 percent higher in fluoridated than non-fluoridated areas.
These were not isolated findings. In the 1970s, Dr. Albert Schatz reported that the artificial fluoridation of drinking water in Latin American countries was associated with increased rates of infant mortality and deaths due to congenital malformation. As long ago as the 1950s, Dr. Ionel Rapaport published studies showing links between Down’s Syndrome and natural fluoridation. See: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/clear-and-present-danger/
Chile abandoned fluoridation in 1977. Unfortunately, Chile later readopted the vice.
India has serious problems with fluoride because fluoride is prevalent in well water, especially now that water tables are dropping and wells are being drilled deeper. While the United States allows high levels of naturally occurring calcium fluoride in drinking water and adds artificial fluoride to drinking water, India does everything it can to avoid fluoride consumption. Dr. AK Susheela, a leading fluoride expert in India reported in a 2010 study in Current Science that fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, decreased pre-term births, and enhanced babies’ birth-weight. See: http://www.fluorideandfluorosis.com/Anemia/Current%20Science%20Reprint.pdf
Researchers from the State University of New York reported at a 2009 meeting of the American Public Health Association in Philadelphia that their study had found more premature births in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated upstate New York communities. See: http://fluoridealert.org/news/study-links-fluoride-to-premature-births/
Dr. Richard Sauerheber cites detailed studies which demonstrate harm to offspring in mammals, particularly to various regions of the brain, which are exposed to blood fluoride levels typical in humans drinking water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm. See: Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 439490, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/.
Dr. Sauerheber points out that Adams and Holland report in Pharmacology for Nurses, A Pathophysiologic Approach (Pearson Publishing, Boston, MA, 2011, p. 66) that fluoride added into water intended to be consumed by pregnant women has an FDA Pregnancy Category Rating X. This is because fluoride added into water has been found in controlled or observational studies done on animals to be causally connected with fetal abnormality. Substances with an X rating have no indication for use in pregnancy, and yet fluoridated water is widely consumed by pregnant women in the U.S. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sauerheber-to-fda-letter-41
While administrators in the FDA, EPA, and CDC support fluoridation or avoid taking action to stop it, the scientists and researchers within those agencies continue to condemn it. Many federal agencies are conflicted in this way, with administrators taking the pro-industry side and scientists taking the pro-consumer side. Consider the way the FDA has given the sale of GMO crops a free hand.
***
To convert phosphate ore into super-phosphate fertilizer, the ore is cooked with sulfuric acid, and the fluoride and other contaminants go up the smokestack. Starting in the 1970s fertilizer plants were required to install wet scrubbers to capture the smoke. Fluorosilicic acid is the unfiltered and unrefined scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of fertilizer plants in Florida, Mexico, China, and other countries. The original ore contains numerous contaminants, and so too does the unfiltered and unrefined product added to our drinking water.
It gets worse. Fluorosilicic acid not only contains lead, is an effective lead solvent. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/silicic-acid. There is lead in most plumbing. Even in new homes there is 8% lead in the typical water faucet (except in California which has stricter standards). Homes with copper pipes are typically soldered with copper-lead solder. In older homes pipes can be up to 30% lead. Old service lines running out to the water main in the street usually contain lead. In 2004 lead in Seattle schools was measured at up to 1,600 ppb, which is 1.6 ppm, an extremely high level. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.
Lead has a negative effect on the developing fetus. A 2006 article in Environmental Health Perspectives says:
Fetal lead exposure has an adverse effect on neurodevelopment, with an effect that may be most pronounced during the first trimester and best captured by measuring lead in either maternal plasma or whole blood. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665421/
While fluoride has been transformed through profit oriented marketing propaganda into an elixir which makes teeth strong, no one makes any positive claims regarding lead. Everyone agrees it is a poison. It may be that the lead leached by the fluorosilicic acid is a bigger problem than the fluorosilicic acid itself.
The EPA maintains a document known as “Building a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants”, a list of “chemicals with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity”. That document states:
I have talked at length with Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. She reports to me that Atlanta women who had never had trouble getting pregnant started having trouble getting pregnant and started having more miscarriages as soon as Atlanta fluoridated its drinking water.
In order to prove or disprove that fluorosilicic acid and fluoridation have a negative effect on fertility and reproduction, we are submitting this proposal to a select reproductive clinic in a city where drinking water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. The experiment would be designed to confirm or deny the effect of fluoride and fluoridation on success rates in achieving pregnancy and successful delivery.
We would propose that the clinic create two primary and one secondary study groups. Group A would be all past patients of the fertility clinic, those would-be mothers and fathers who were not systematically informed to avoid fluoride. Although some members of Group A may have lived outside the fluoridated metropolitan area, most of them probably drank fluoridated beverages and used fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash.
Group B would be new patients of the clinic, enrolled after the start of the study. The clinic would advise would be mothers and fathers in Group B as to how to avoid consuming fluoride in any form, which we will detail further below.
Group C would be a transitional group, those who are already patients at the start of the study but who have not completed treatment. Group C subjects were not previously instructed to avoid consuming fluoride, but they will start receiving such instruction during their course of fertility treatment.
The other way to design the study would be to disregard past patients and transitional patients and to break new patients into two groups, with one group being told to avoid fluoride and the other group being told nothing about fluoride. There are numerous disadvantages with this approach: The number of subjects would be reduced. It could be difficult for staff members to remember to keep silent to certain patients while giving disclosure to others. Written materials might accidentally be made available to the wrong group. Patients in the informed group might discuss fluoride with patients in the uninformed group.
Further, given the fact that there is already substantial evidence that fluoride and fluoridation negatively impact fertility and reproduction, it might verge on the unethical not to disclose this issue to all clinic patients going forward. Moreover, those patients who are not informed of this factor and who fail to conceive, might be very unhappy with the clinic if they later learn that the experiment found that fluoride negatively impact fertility and reproduction.
Regarding Group B and Group C, the clinic would advise potential mothers and fathers not to drink fluoridated tap water or use it for cooking unless it is run through a distiller or a reverse osmosis filtration system. The clinic would advise them that it is acceptable to drink water which comes from a well or other non-fluoridated source, or which is purchased as bottled water in the form of spring water or distilled water. The clinic would give patients a list of foods and beverages which are known to be high in fluoride, such as certain teas, sodas, and bottled water. Certain bottled waters and reconstituted juices are made from fluoridated tap water and contain as much fluoride ion as tap water. We would help you prepare a list of foods and beverages which contain and do not contain fluoride.
The clinic would advise patients to take only brief showers or baths if their tap water is fluoridated because there is some incorporation of fluoride through skin. Physicians in the past used bathing in fluoridated water as a means of treating hyperthyroidism. See: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/thyroid02/
The clinic would advise potential mothers and fathers not to brush with fluoridated toothpaste and not to use fluoridated mouthwash. The fluoride ion content of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash is extremely high, typically around 1,500 ppm. Much fluoride ion is absorbed through mouth tissues. Fluoride adheres loosely to teeth in the form of calcium fluoride clumps, but these wash off and are swallowed when any acidic food or beverage is consumed. The clinic would advise patients that if they visit the dentist they should decline fluoride gel treatments as well.
***
A fertility and reproductive specialty clinic would be uniquely positioned to run an experiment of this kind. The clinic could increase its success rate in producing healthy, happy babies and at the same time make a great contribution to science.
***
Note: The authors are James Robert Deal, Washington attorney, and president of Fluoride Class Action, and Dr. Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D., professor of chemistry at Palomar College in San Diego, and science advisor to Fluoride Class Action. Fluoride Class Action is a joint effort of attorneys and scientists around the world who study the legal and scientific issues relating to fluoridation.
I don’t think I would be too harsh if I said most of it was off point and did not relate in any way to my question.
I have taken the liberty of discarding much of your inane babble to focus on aspects actually related to my question.
I suppose you would be used to this being an attorney, paring the irrelevancy to expose the issue at hand. All that cut and thrust…so to speak. I really enjoyed watching Boston Legal!
Well….I guess the crux of what you said was;
“Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
I think Cedric covered much of this but I doubt you will take his words of wisdom to heart.
I will add my little observation though.
I find it interesting that you have shifted away from “Big Business” and shady back room Deals (No pun intended!) to the “Intrinsic Power and Evil” of the almighty dollar.
You appear to be moving away from the “Conspiracy” label; perhaps you finds it damaging to your brand?
The problem with divesting control from a group of faceless self interested individuals to an inanimate object or abstract idea (human greed) is that you necessarily lose a central coordinating characteristic.
The glue so to speak or put another way, the power of the conspiracy.
Another problem you have is appearing inconsistent.
So which is it Big Business or the Almighty Dollar?
The James Robert Deal experiment. Mr Deal, believing x,y and z to be critically harmful to the human foetus, is prepared to inflict it onto pregnant mothers to “prove” it so.
That pretty much shows Mr Deal to be a moral imbecile and should be broadcast for the world to see.
While you are back would you please answer Cedric’s question (put earlier but unanswered) as to which vaccinations you consider well tested and which are not. The question is relevant to the methodology you apply to science and public health. Thank you.
You said today:
But its been added to the water for 60 years, why aren’t the lunatic asylums overflowing with the brain-damaged fluoride victims?
And where do they hide all the deformed corpses?
Above all, how [many] children will die of preventable disease if Mr Deal starts succeeding in his ant-vaccination litigation?
***
Richard, you bring up points which many fluoridationists raise. Fluoride and the lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium in the fluorosilicic acid are chronic and not acute poisons at the levels they appear in fluoridated drinking water. Increase the concentration and people would fall over.
Actually some people do fall over, Around 1% have violent reactions to drinking or bathing in fluoridated water. I have talked with them. In most cases they were overdosed on fluoride at young ages. Typically they swallowed a lot of their fluoridated toothpaste because it tasted like candy. Or they brushed many times per day with fluoridated toothpaste. Everyone swallows some of their toothpaste. What ever stays on your teeth is eventually swallowed when you drink something acidic. Much fluoride is absorbed through mouth tissues. The fact that around 1% are hypersensitive cannot be denied. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/hypersensitives-effects-from-ingestion-of-fluoride.
But fluoridationists either deny the existence of the hypersensitives or write these unfortunate people off as acceptable collateral damage. They can just buy a whole house filter for $4,000 or leave town. Fluoridationists seem to be willing to harm some in order to help many. Why should any be harmed if there are other and better ways to prevent caries?
You are also asking where the harm is. There is a long list of harms, and I will only discus a few. The pineal gets calcified, which is a master gland, which affects other glands People have to take sleeping pills. Six year old boys and girls start growing pubic hair. Fluoride and lead reduce production of thyroid enzyme.
The kidneys, the organs which excrete fluoride, are gradually harmed by fluoride consumption because fluoride builds up there. The kidneys become less efficient at excreting fluoride over time. Blood becomes more acidic, and the kidneys lose ability to bring pH back to neutrality. The calcium pump in the heart is affected. There is speculation that kidney patients do not die of failed kidneys; they die instead of heart attacks brought on by an acid pH brought on by failing kidneys. Likewise, the heart too becomes calcified. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616#. Fluoride consumption exacerbates heart disease. See http://www.vkingpub.com/journal/jlm/Download.aspx?ID=1873.
Bones become heavier and more brittle, so breaks by old ladies, athletes, and race horses become more common. When an old person breaks a hip it is hard to repair. The patient cannot roll over in bed. The immediate cause of death is sometimes infected bedsores.
Regarding brain damage, there is an article in the Jan-Feb edition of Mother Jones entitled “Criminal Element: The hidden villain behind rampant crime, lower IQs, even rising ADHD”. Read it here: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline. It is about the brain damage that tetraethyl lead in gasoline did from the 20s to the 90s. That was another cash cow that was hard to stop. See? It is not necessary to hypothesize a conspiracy, just a big cash flow.
We got the lead out of gasoline, but we did not get it out of our drinking water. Lead levels were up to 1600 ppb in old Seattle schools with lead plumbing and lead bubblers. In Tacoma lead levels in drinking water dropped in half when Tacoma temporarily stopped fluoridating. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/tacoma.
I do not understand how you can ignore the lead aspect of the fluoridation issue. The lead may be more harmful than the fluoride. That is another reason why dentists should oppose fluoridation – because the type of fluoride contains lead and leaches lead from pipes. Dentists only use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, and it does not run through and leach lead pipes.
You you are slowly poisoning yourselves and your own children with lead. So strong is your religious belief in the fluoridation cult! Isn’t it ironic that the Open Parachute blog is anti-religion but is frequented by people who believe the fluoride religion?
Children do not necessarily die right away of preventable diseases caused by fluoridation. Premature death comes after a lifetime of chronic poisoning.
But it is clear that embryos and fetuses do die as a result of the fluoride and lead which mothers consume in fluoridated water. The fluoride, lead, arsenic, and all the other toxins pass right through the placenta into the embryo and fetus. These toxins are enzyme interruptors, and they interfere with repair of damage to DNA. Dr. The embryo and fetus are much more susceptible to harm because cells are so rapidly dividing. Sauerheber and I have documented this in the following article which we wrote together: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/reproduction.
Finally you bring up the vaccination issue. This blog is not a vaccination blog. I am not going to go into detail discussing the various clean, effective, double-blind vaccines which have prevented and eradicated various diseases. Nor will I discuss specific filthy, aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury contaminated and untested vaccines, which are ineffective at preventing the diseases they claim to prevent and which cause various adverse reactions. The Vaccine Court has paid out some $2.5 billion, so you cannot deny that some vaccines cause harm.
As a lawyer I object most strongly to vaccine makers being exempt from liability. That has made vaccine makers reckless. That has allowed them to ramp up production of vaccines for everything. Selling vaccines is a huge business. We are back to big cash flow and the blindness induced by greed.
Discussion of specific vaccines belongs on some other blog. The similarity between fluoridation and mass production of scores of vaccines to be administered scores of times to children is that both fluoridation and mass production of vaccines are cash cows. It is not necessary to postulate a conspiracy. Cash flow is the glue that holds these harmful behaviors together. Cash flow is the motive force. It has a power of its own and is hard to slow down or stop.
Did your bringing up vaccination is an attempted cheap shot on your part to try to get the reader to classify me as an anti-vaccine nut? A lot of people hold to that prejudice. Or were you just curious about the good, bad, and ugly of vaccines?
In closing I would say: Just as it is wrong to be against all vaccines, it is equally wrong to say that all vaccines are safe and effective and that their manufacturers should be completely immune for liability for making vaccines which cause harm.
The vaccine debate is in some ways similar to the fluoride debate.
Richard, I hope you will be open minded enough to accept the possibility that you are wrong about fluoridation and find your way out of the fluoridation maze.
Stuart Mathieson says, in response to the James Robert Deal post on Open Parachute regarding a proposed experiment on embryos and fetuses:
“The James Robert Deal experiment. Mr Deal, believing x,y and z to be critically harmful to the human foetus, is prepared to inflict it onto pregnant mothers to “prove” it so.
“That pretty much shows Mr Deal to be a moral imbecile and should be broadcast for the world to see.”
You did not read the post very well. The A group is former fertility patients, those who were not advised not to consume fluoride and are no longer patients. The B group is all new patients, those advised to avoid all fluoride in water, food, and toothpaste. The C group is those who are current patients; they started before the advice was given to avoid fluoride but are informed mid-stream during their treatment to stop consuming fluoride.
A prestigious fertility clinic back East is interested in implementing this study.
What you miss is the simple fact that from the start of the study going forward all current and new patients would be advised to avoid fluoride.
Got it? I do not support the continued infliction of fluoride on mothers for the sake of creating fluoride and non-fluoride groups.
Are you going to apologize for calling me a “moral imbecile”?
Resorting to insult is another technique whereby the exits from the fluoridation maze are blocked. You don’t have to try to understand your opponent; you can just insult him and dismiss him that way.
“Bugger, I should have approved James’s single sentence – sorry people. Here’s a lawyer designing scientific investigations.”
You respond with mockery instead of studying the article and responding to the points made. I do not have to have a degree in science to understand science.
The article was written jointly with Richard Sauerheber, PhD in chemistry, who is widely published. Try to say something substantive.
Your mocking behavior is a way of blocking the exits from the fluoridation maze in which you are trapped.
You are right in one respect. I did not read every line of your inane nonsense and why would I? You have demonstrated time and again your contempt for argument, evidence and reference for views opposite to your own. You are like the creationists who demand that every supporter of evolution has to prove it to you, personally, on your terms. The evidence is there for you to read, not me to shove down your throat. But you choose not to read it or accept the implications of it. What you are doing is parading your ego and your narcissistic personality at the expense of credibly the health and welfare of millions of people. Only a moral imbecile and a sociopath could do that.
Did your bringing up vaccination is an attempted cheap shot on your part to try to get the reader to classify me as an anti-vaccine nut?
Definitely not a cheap shot. Your website(s), which you tiresomely link to, made it clear you that are touting for litigating business on the anti-vax front as well as the anti-fluoridation front.
It is legitimate to compare your approach to both.
And interesting that you refuse to list the vaccines you object to and claim to be untested. Instead you direct attention to a pair of sites well outside the scientific and medical mainstream. Sorry, but our standards are higher in here. Natural News just doesn’t make the grade, nor does Dr Mercola, no matter how many NY Times articles he may have penned.
It’s all about the scientific arena. If you want to dispute or change the mainstream scientific position then the only way to do so is to engage in the scientific arena.
You can’t win on the science in any other way.
Again, and more slowly now…
….you can’t win on the science in any other way.
That’s why you always end up with a conspiracy in order to justify the anti-consensus position. It’s the only mechanism that you can invoke to circumvent the scientific community’s processes.
In common with the conspiracy kooks of Climate Change, Agenda 21, Com Trails, even the 9/11 Truthers, you throw out the line that it is the scientific community and establishment that is indulging in religious thinking. In doing so all you do is make yourself look foolish.
I haven’t addressed your repetition of anti-fluoridation PRATTs, they’ve already been comprehensively addressed in the series of articles.
“A prestigious fertility clinic back East is interested in implementing this study.”
You say.
Love to see the tender documents.
“Wanted, trials to establish fluoride can be dangerous for the developing embryo by not administering fluoride but analysing populations where it is and where it isn’t. ”
Sounds like the kind of guaranteed outcome notorious in some Big Pharma trials. A group like yours interested only in “evidence” of a particular kind, would not risk the humiliation of a public trial that would disclose your questionable agenda. I can guarantee it would be a exercise in rigged premises or rigged conclusions. But it might cut the ice with the gushing classes and that’s all you care about. Either way it’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Please DO take your arguments to court. Make sure you include all data from the “study” that you and Sauerhaber hatched, and all the “references” to “fluoridealert.org”, your own “class-action” website” and opinions from those bastions of “knowledge”, Mercola, and Connett. I’m sure we could all use a good laugh.
Strictly for my own curiosity, I have to ask, though….how do you and Sauerhaber plan to control for the halo effect and all other sources of fluoride intake in these mothers whom you will instruct “to avoid fluoride intake”. And, since you suspect fluoride to have a negative impact on developing fetuses, how do you plan to deal with the ethics of instructing one group of your subjects to avoid a substance you “hypothesize” will cause fetal injury, while not informing your other group that you are using their fetuses as guinea pigs by not instructing them to avoid a substance you “hypothesize” will cause injury to their developing fetuses? You mught want to make sure your malpractice insurance is current.
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
I replied :
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
And then you ran away.
This happened on the 3rd of December on this very thread.
Still waiting here.
(…crickets chirping…)
(…James Robert Attorney Deal babbles away and furiously waves his hands in the air. People point at him and laugh….)
(…more crickets chirping…)
James?
Hello?
Name them. How hard can it be?
Name them.
Might it be a fair assumption that after the Deal/Sauerhaber, et al Study is completed in however long it takes the two of you to objectively determine the scientific truth, that it will be submitted to the journal “Fluoride” for certain publication?
I led you by the hand up the hill to the observatory
I pointed the telescope at the sun
You looked through the eyepiece
You still couldn’t see it, so
I removed your welding glasses
Nope….. still couldn’t see it
I prised your eyes open…..
Perhaps you are suffering from flash blindness. But to use your vernacular, why don’t you show some balls and acknowledge the fact I answered your questions on “jurisdiction” clearly, directly and at length…and perhaps, just perhaps you were wrong.
I notice the real Deal class action web site goes on and on in a number of posting about “toxic” elements and compounds such as lead, arsenic and various radioactive elements deposited he claims because of the corrosive effects of fluorosilicic acid, these other toxins end up in our drinking water. The fact of the matter is that concentrations are managed so that extraneous elements are well within the natural occurrence of them. It doesn’t take long to realise this site and other (Organic and Homesteader) sites have a fixation on contamination bordering on mania.
It reveals a profound ignorance of biology and evolution which has always operated in environments rich in traces of this and that. I’m reminded of the old Scottish Calvinists who banned the consumption of potatoes because they were not mentioned in the Old Testament.
Where were we…..I would really love it if you could answer my question.
You have made fundamental shift from Big Business to Individual Greed.
I know you perhaps think this is a minor distraction and unimportant, but surely you must acknowledge the fundamental importance of such an ideological shift.
Ah and I know this is a little distraction…I had a wee peek at your website; http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/
To my surprise and unless you have created a new element on the periodic table, right there in the banner you spelt cadmium incorrectly!
Normally I wouldn’t be so pedantic but you are an attorney and words are your stock and trade. Also I thought that I would do you a small favour because its right up there in flashing lights – so to speak and may give the impression to some that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Christopher, Deal’s looney website. It’s a carnival tunnel of horror. An endless journey through never never land but you can see the constituency it’s aimed at.
I’ve pasted a couple if my postings onto his class action site. Be interesting to see whether they survive moderation or whether I get a visit by grim looking men abseiling from helicopters. On that event let me just say
“this is a far better thing ……zzzzzz”
Guys, I’m thinking of starting my own group with its own website. I’ll call it Antifluoridationist-Free North Carolina, with the website named “Idiotalert.org”…..
The irony of it all is that some of the arguments posted by the anti F brigade report evidence that shows the efficacy of fluoride via its widespread inclusion in manufactured foodstuffs and beverages. So even communities that do not officially fluoridate their water nevertheless have exposure indirectly. This is a good thing provided dosages are appropriate. But this serendipitous state of affairs will only continue if sufficient F is available for food processing. So out of one side of their mouths they deny the science. Out of the other side they provide convincing evidence for it. What’s the crucial difference? “Socialism”. A role for government and other political bodies in delivering the product. These people are homesteading fantasizers who subscribe to T – Party politics. Their patron saint is Serah Palin.
You got it Stuart. Sarah Palin epitomizes the antifluoridationist. Being totally oblivious to her own ignorance she just blusters along, totally bewildered as to why she gets no respect from the mainstream.
Forgive me for straying off topic, Ken, but the most frustrating thing about antifluoridationists is their ignorance, and their total oblivion to it. Somebody like Connett comes along with just enough education and charisma to come across as being an “authority” on the issue, yet totally lacking understanding of basic facts, far overestimating of his own knowledge, and convinces the blind followers who crave any and all anti-authoritarian causes, that the establishment is corrupt, ignorant, and lacks the “knowledge” that only he possesses through his “study” of new “emerging science “. Being totally unaware that what is “new science” to him is nothing more than basic knowledge of which the true experts and authorities have long since been aware and have fully addressed, he blusters forward confident that he has the “truth” on his side. The worldwide body of respected healthcare is either “corrupt “, conspiracy laden, or ignorant of the “facts” that he is trying his utmost to bring to their attention. Dentists are running the fluoridation show, yet are all dumber than doorknobs and totally lacking in any knowledge of the human body outside of the portions of the teeth that are visible above the gum line, and decision makers are all unwittingly manipulated by big money interests. The people to whom he plays buy into his spiel, lock, stock, and barrel, thus becoming in their own minds far more knowledgeable about the issue than the dumb dentists, corrupt mainstream healthcare, and unwitting politicians who are stripping away personal freedoms and poisoning everyone in the process. Portland and Wichita are poster-children for the chaotic circus side-show that he creates by convincing a very active, very vocal, very ignorant few, of the “validity” of his own ignorance.
Christopher Atkinson, your description of Bill Osmunson hit the nail on the head: “You blunder around throwing words haphazardly about with confidence of charlatan and the precision of a drunk cabbage”. Thank you for giving me a good laugh.
Bill and I live in the state of Oregon and we have gone up against one another in various city jurisdictions and his continual harping about fluoridation being forced medication has failed many times. He has been brought in as the fluoridation hit man for the Fluoride Action Network in 3 long-standing fluoridated communities in Oregon: Keizer, McMinnville, and Philomath. In all of these communities Bill failed. All of these communities today continue to give their citizens the public health benefit of fluoridation. In Philomath, the city council actually voted out fluoridation, but the citizens voted in March 2012 to overturn this decision. FAN also flew out Paul Connett to little Philomath (population 4500) from New York to try and scare the public. That didn’t work either.
While it is easier to scare the public than to unscare the public, long-standing fluoridated communities don’t take kindly to the notion that adults, who have raised their families in these fluoridated communities, have enjoyed seeing their children grow up with better teeth than their parents, have gotten college educations, gotten married and startedfamilies, to hear these fear mongers suggest that these adults have allowed their children to be poisoned resulting, among other things a 7 point drop in IQ because they let their children be poisoned.
Regarding James Robert Deal, he has repeatedly approached the Everrett, Washington city council as recently shown up at a Seattle city council meeting to spout out his rubbish. They are not only sick of him, he hasn’t gotten anywhere with these long-standing fluoridated communities. Here’s a You Tube video of his presentation in Everrett. Enjoy……
( I think this will work)
You Kiwi’s got it together, and I’ve admired your great posts, both intelligent, science-based, and peppered with an appropriate amount of humor.
To Osmunson and Deal: PRATT = “Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
I’d just like to alert readers that Mr Deal has been taking comments from this debate, writing a reply (as are published here) and using the result as a post topic on his blog.
He has not alerted us to this practice and as a result, if your comments appear there you are effectively being denied further right of reply on his blog.
…but the most frustrating thing about (insert brand of your favourite science denier) is their ignorance, and their total oblivion to it. Somebody like (insert any Phd loose on the internet) comes along with just enough education and charisma to come across as being an “authority” on the issue, yet totally lacking understanding of basic facts, far overestimating of his own knowledge, and convinces the blind followers who crave any and all anti-authoritarian causes, that the establishment is corrupt, ignorant, and lacks the “knowledge” that only he possesses through his “study” of new “emerging science “. Being totally unaware that what is “new science” to him is nothing more than basic knowledge of which the true experts and authorities have long since been aware and have fully addressed, he blusters forward confident that he has the “truth” on his side. The worldwide body of respected (insert relevent scientific specialists) is either “corrupt “, conspiracy laden, or ignorant of the “facts” that he is trying his utmost to bring to their attention. The scientists are running the (insert relevent scientific topic) show, yet are all dumber than doorknobs and totally lacking in any knowledge of (X,Y adn/or Z), and decision makers are all unwittingly manipulated by big money interests. The people to whom he plays buy into his spiel, lock, stock, and barrel, thus becoming in their own minds far more knowledgeable about the issue than the dumb scientists, corrupt mainstream science, and unwitting politicians who are stripping away personal freedoms and harming everyone in the process.
Hmm.
Works perfectly. Only the labels are different.
I’d just like to alert readers that Mr Deal has been taking comments from this debate, writing a reply (as are published here) and using the result as a post topic on his blog.
It’s also very good to have Kurt and Steve’s input, it’s great to have a wider perspective of the crazy we have here in NZ. I admire the patience you both must have.
Just going by the intellectual quality you are up against, I would have thought it would be a walk in Pier Park.
But alas, as I am learning, never underestimate the tenacity and sheer bloody mindedness of stupidity.
Someone once (I think it may have been me) said the “Age of Aquarius” that came out of California was Old Workd fallacies shipped around the world in new bottles. “Moonshine” I think it’s called. Remember these loons are relatively small in number. It’s not that hard to present yourself as a multitude, especially on line. Having browsed Mr Deal’s various activities I have concluded it is an echo chamber and not a very large one at that. About the size of an English/Kiwi phone box.
And Kurt! Come and live over here in Middle Earth. Remember Fahrenheit 451? We might be one of the few outpost left on the planet that practices sanity!
Dime a dozen here really. (perhaps a poor idiom…maybe $150/hr)
Anyway, no great shakes as they say.
What I find interesting is that he has a link on this page titled “Transit Scholar”. When clicked on, to my sheer and utter amazement I was directed to an op-ed article on traffic congestion!
NOT a resume of his teaching record!
Whacky huh!
James, this is directed at you.
Maybe it’s just an error with your webpage and you do have years of scholarly academic experience.
But you must know how this looks.
One can only hope that Mr. Professor Deal continues to display his “knowledge” at City Council meetings everywhere. There is just no way to adequately describe such uninformed ignorance with words only. Public demonstrations are SO much more effective. With any luck, he’ll also present his “case” in court, such that fluoridation will obtain even more, favorable legal decisions.
Here’s a bit of neuroscience. When you test people with moral dilemmas the circuits that activate when disgust is registered from say rotten food, is the same as moral disgust.
I’m wondering about this paranoia toward contamination, even the thiught of contamination. Or is it something about sin. Was there something in the childhood. Forced to eat unappetising food by cruel parents. It has to be some sort of pathology. Only a pathology would deny the common evidence and seek peculiar improbable connections. Connections that are imaginary or metaphorical but definitely not the sort that can be qualified or measured in a clinic or laboratory. Possibly beatings for not cleaning teeth. Or being forced to kiss Granny with a mouth full of rotten ones. There’ll be a story there. There always is.
Therein I saw you had copy-pasted one of my questions from this blog and incorporated it into yours.
Brilliant I thought…cool….I’m gonna be world famous…woo hoo and all that
You copied my question…then replied to it (I use this phrase loosely)
..’cept you haven’t showed my subsequent reply….what’s worse…not only did you not ask me if you could use it (that’s fine really – my skin is pretty thick) but you have failed to provide any right of reply.
I don’t know where you studied law but the precepts of natural justice must surely apply.
Do you believe in what you say?
Do you have the strength of your convictions?
I will post your responses to what I post on my blog – provided it is not too abusive. You only have to go to http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/moral-imbecile and enter your reply. Try to stick to the substance of the issue instead of merely hurling epithets. .
I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit putting highly dilute filth in our water. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.
There is no copyright on comments you post on a blog like Open Parachute. So I do not have to ask your permission. Maybe I should ask Ken’s. But I don’t think Ken is claiming a copyright either, and further reposting should be in the interest of Open Parachute because it brings more people there.
Nevertheless, if you do want me to remove something you wrote previously and which I posted on my blog, let me know and I will take it down.
James Robert Deal at Fluoride Class Action
12-19-20
Cedric.
I agree about the Courts. In his blogs he almost seems authoritive and knowledgeable but in the Courtroom under the beady eye of a judge and expert witnesses, inept.
There are a few dopey judges around but most are very perspicacious.
The trouble with the court system is that it doesn’t work as easily as posting on the internet.
In court, you have to make a claim. A specific claim.
Plus you have to provide a body of evidence.
Both sides get all the time in the world to prepare their cases.
Then the opposition gets to bring in their expert witnesses.
All of this under oath.
Signed depositions and all that good stuff.
Science deniers can’t cut it.
It gets them all confused.
One really good thing to do on the internet is to get the science denier to attempt to spit out what they are actually claiming is going on.
The nuts and bolts of the operation.
The “how”.
Suddenly, they get all coy.
They are much more comfortable with vague and squishy suspicions.
The kind of vagueness and squishiness that does surprisingly poorly in both the scientific arena and the courtroom.
“Your Honour, I have here an email.”
(…awkward silence…)
“It proves they are up to no good. In black and white.”
“Ahh…..Them, Your Honour. Scientists.”
“Well, um, they’re doing stuff. Bad stuff. Against the public. It’s criminal”.
“It’s complicated, Your Honour. A bit hard to put into words. But it’s bad stuff.”
(…more awkward silence…)
“If I could just read the email, Your Ho…”
“Oh”
“But Your Honour, the email is really important. It reveals the terrible troooth!!!”
“Well…do I really have to be specific? Surely “terrible trooth” is all I need to mention! I mean, um…there’s this email and…No? Ah….hmm.”
(…science denier wanders off muttering about activist judges…)
Obviously his letter dodges jurisdiction and punts jurisdiction to others. He writes, “We therefore do not consider the addition of substances such as chlorine or fluoride, or alum to water to be under the remit of the Medicines Act but rather under the control of other public health and water quality legislation.”
Ken and Christopher, please provide the names of the “other public health and water quality legislation” which provide scientific review of the safety and efficacy of the addition of fluoride chemicals to water and provide their scientific review.
Until we find who has jurisdiction and review their science, we are simply arguing bias based on low quality research.
Ken,
I understand it is hard to keep up with all the information and quietly reason out each statement. Takes a great deal of time. I posted this earlier:
“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation.
I have three other cases to send where judges ruled against fluoridation. Need to find them on my computer. Change from PC to MAC was not as smooth as I expected.
Bill, could you post a link to the Netherlands decision, and to the other three you mention? I would like t ocheck them. Our concern here us whether they defined F as a medicine which appears to have been rejected in the vast majority if cases.
Bill, you are ranting into a void with your diversion on “jurisdiction.” The discussion is about the legality of referring to F in water as a medicine or drug. “Jurisdiction” will depend on specific situations and is a diversion..
“There is no copyright on comments you post on a blog like Open Parachute. So I do not have to ask your permission.”
are you sure? really sure?…you being an attorney and all.
I can see that you are as sharp as a tack at picking issues or Ratio decidendi to use lawyerspeak…
I wasn’t referring to Intellectual Property and whether you had a legal right to republish my original work. I thought when I said “that’s fine really – my skin is pretty thick” you may have picked up on an implied consent.
What I was referring to was (and I did this explicitly if you notice) was Natural Justice.
You lifted my question word, comma and full stop (period). You published it on your website.
You did this without my knowledge or permission. This is just dishonest.
Forget the legalese, the silly posturing. Just some common courtesy please!
The turntable is set to 45 and there is an almighty scratch…jurisdiction…jurisdiction…juris…
“Ken and Christopher, please provide the names of the “other public health and water quality legislation” which provide scientific review of the safety and efficacy of the addition of fluoride chemicals to water and provide their scientific review.”
Oh…now you want “other” legislation!
That legislation…
I should’ve known.
I think you will find this together with the legislation that regulates the grade and thickness of Aluminium when used for the purpose of headwear construction.
“I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit pretending that we really made it to the moon. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.”
“I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit putting vaccines in our childrens’ bodies. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.”
“I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit believing in from goo to the zoo to you. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.”
Bill, you might as well give it up. These guys are far too adept at identifying and cutting through BS for you to have any success in posting it here. Although, on second thought, their slicing and dicing of your arguments do provide me with great entertainment……so, yeah, keep it up.
And Attorney Deal……..the material with which you’ve provided these guys to rip to shreds has been nothing less than priceless! PLEASE continue!
Gentlemen. You are so caustic and unprofessional with your slander that I have to leave and try and control my embarrassment at the terms and words you use. Is it possible to stick to the subject and discuss the issue of fluoride in a professional and courteous manner?
Ken and Christopher, and all.
When comments are made which are slander, mockery and hatred, I simply skip the post. Calling people idiots is attacking the messenger rather than the message. So if you want to be professional, then respond in a professional manner and I will read your posts. Otherwise I skip them.
I am absolutely confident that someday fluoridation of public water in most of the world will follow the example of the majority of countries, dental associations and health care professionals in the world and will stop. I’m not implying that those promoting fluoridation are bad people because I actively promoted fluoridation and was one of them before I reviewed the science.
The way fluoridation stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature in a scientific manner and not with mockery and bias as has been exhibited here. If no one has responsibility, then the tradition persists.
Fluoridation is a tradition based on flawed science which is the reason for my constant request for jurisdiction. As long as there is no scientific body with legal jurisdiction who evaluates the science, then fluoridation will continue to be controversial.
Instead of answering my question with civility, my question is ignored and I am personally attacked.
Please stick with the science. Who is responsible and has jurisdiction for scientifically evaluating the efficacy and safety of fluoridation?
We each do it for ourselves, but who in NZ has the authority and can you provide their review of the science on total exposure, efficacy and safety for each individual.
Bill, before you take off could you provide me links to the 4 legal decisions you mention? These are important as until I have a chance to read these for myself I cannot see them as countering the claims I made in my response to Paul. And Paul himself seemed to avoid the issue again.
I can appreciate you might find the humour here a bit distressing – unfortunate it comes with the territory and seems to be inevitable in lively Internet discussions. But more important I think some of your arguments and evasive responses invites such humour.
My advice is to be specific, don’t try diverting the discussion and avoid Gish galloping. If you can stick to the scientific issues and debate them honestly it helps to prevent the frustration which lead to people responding with humour. After all, they get to see this as the only effective response of normal discussion is impossible.
For example, enough of this jurisdiction diversion. It is just a way of avoiding the science.
Well Bill it seems to me the general public in the U.S.A. dont agree with your logic. I think they are studying both side of the argument and finding the anti fluoride people wanting. There has been too many shady statements being made about how bad fluoride is that dont stack up, you have to remember. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2012stats.htm).
You are so caustic and unprofessional with your slander…
Idle babble.
Speak English.
slan·der
/ˈslandər/
noun
Law
noun: slander
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.
“he is suing the TV network for slander”
a false and malicious spoken statement.
verb
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
There is no “slander”. Feel free to quote the part where someone actually slandered you.
(…crickets chirping…)
When comments are made which are slander, mockery and hatred, I simply skip the post. Calling people idiots…. is not slander, you idiot.
It might be mockery. Hatred? Nah. Don’t flatter yourself.
Calling someone an idiot is a simple observation.
An insult? Sure.
Tough cheese, old boy.
Welcome to the internet.
If the shoe fits, then wear it.
I am absolutely confident that someday fluoridation of public water in most of the world will follow the example…
Spare us your crystal ball gazing.
We just don’t care.
Claim CA110:
“Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.”
The way fluoridation stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…
Oh what utter bullshit you spout.
There is no “both sides”.
There’s a scientific consensus. Versus you.
Nothing else.
That’s not “both sides”. That’s just sad and lonely.
It’s been almost 70 years now. Give up.
“The way vaccines stop is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…”
“The way the myth of the moonlandings stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…”
“The way climate alarmism stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…”
Claim CA040:
“In fairness, creation and evolution deserve equal time in science classes.”
…and not with mockery and bias as has been exhibited here.
We mock your laziness.
This is a blog.
You want to be taken seriously? The get off your lazy backside and enter the scientific arena.
That’s where the metal meets the meat.
Don’t waste your time on the internet whining about how the other kids are being all mean to you. Pull your finger out and get cracking on research.
You’re sciencey, right? Well, do the sciencey stuff thingy! Earn than white gown that you so proudly wore in that promotional video of yours. Get it dirty with honest labour.
Stop play-acting and do some real work.
Earn your Nobel Prize.
Respect isn’t free. You don’t get it from a plastic wrapper at the bottom of a cereal box.
You have to earn it.
Fluoridation is a tradition based on flawed science
We know. We know. We know.
All the science deniers say the same thing. It’s more of the same ol’, same ol’.
Evolution is flawed science.
Climate change is flawed science.
The link between tobacco and cancer is flawed science blah, blah, blah.
Put up or shut up.
Less talky-talky and more worky worky.
These guys think the science is already on “their side” – that fluoridation is both harmful and ineffective. According to them the science is basically done and dusted.
TIt’s just that the establishment and scientific community is refusing to acknowledge this. It cannot be anything but a conspiracy. Or incompetence on such a colossal scale it doesn’t bear thinking about, conspiracy is actually easier to explain.
My advice to them is get the goods on the conspiracy rather than more science, because according to them the science is conclusively in their favour. Why waste time getting more if the corrupt establishment will bury or distort it?
They need names, dates, expose the money trail, the kickbacks, the board room minutes, the forged studies and altered meta-analyses. Names, names, more names and dates.
They need to expose the strong arm tactics used to keep all the scientists, dental health professionals and public health bodies in line. Medical evidence of broken legs, threats against whistle-blowers’ children, severed ears in envelopes, heck in 60 years there must be bodies buried somewhere, dig them up.
I think you have touched on an interesting feature.
That of disgust…perhaps triggered by a perceived assault to bodily integrity.
Just take our lawyerly Anti as an example. (Take a peek at his website)
He display’s an aversion/suspicion of;
WiFi and smart meters (these use cellular technology so why not also cell/mobile phones?), Milk, Vaccines, Fluoride and Meat.
Another recent female poster is fixated on contamination, somehow believing the world to “pure” and that ANY level of any BAD substance must be eliminated. This appears to be very common theme among anti-fluoridationists.
The more (apparently) sophisticated responses appear to be those from the “Freedom of Choice” camp. I say apparently because when you scrape the surface, this argument is simply a common fall back response when the “scientific” arguments begin to falter.
But…just look at one of Mary’s comments…
” It wouldn’t matter if you had me believe that fluoride was some kind of amazing substance that had a huge amount of health benefits and no harm I would still be opposed if there were other people did not want it. ”
To be consistent here, one would need to be a strict Libertarian or perhaps even an Objectivist. It would be quite easy to tease out any inconsistency by simply asking about a range of other issues involving State intervention…seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, vaccine programs, Public health and education.
I have answered your questions in depth and a length, explaining aspects of our legal system here in NZ to enable you to understand the framework into which my answers relate. Yes, Ken is quite right…I feel an acute sense of frustration communicating with you.
You said;
“When comments are made which are slander, mockery and hatred, I simply skip the post”
Slander:..What Cedric said plus you mean LIBEL
Hatred: No, No, No you foolish illiterate. Look the definition up in a dictionary.
Mockery: Absolutely.
“Calling people idiots is attacking the messenger rather than the message”
Again…. what Cedric said plus…I will correct your mistake again…
“Calling people idiots is attacking the messenger BECAUSE OF THE message”
Using aphorisms incorrectly makes you look stupid.
Using the wrong word makes you look stupid.
Using the wrong word after being corrected makes you look stupid, stupid, stupid.
You did this.
You.
Not me.
You.
Bill.
Bill Osmunson
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH.
Don’t turn this back on me when I point this out to you.
Every time I make a claim…say for instance, that you are stupid or foolish, its because of something you have written.
That “something” I write down in text for you to see. This gives you the opportunity for you to disagree.
Let us test this claim of mine.
Example:
“Hatred: No, No, No you foolish illiterate. Look the definition up in a dictionary”
Explanation.
“I called you a foolish illiterate BECAUSE you used the word Hatred incorrectly and in doing so inferred that I am hateful”
Now, because I have written this in text, you are now able to challenge my claim with evidence of your own. You are free to search this blog for instances that show I have exhibited hatred towards you. If you find any, show me.
I will apologise if I have made any error.
Scroll away.
Oops, Bill. I tried to warn you. Your BS is no match for these guys. But, I realize you just couldn’t help yourself. You had to provide them with yet one more post of pure nonsense to strip down to the bottom line……your personal ideology and opinions versus the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare.
Now all we need is for Attorney Deal to provide some more juicy ripe fodder for them, and my entertainment for the day will be complete.
Ken,
Thank you for sticking to the evidence and questions in a professional manner with your question,
“Bill, could you post a link to the Netherlands decision, and to the other three you mention? I would like t ocheck them. Our concern here us whether they defined F as a medicine which appears to have been rejected in the vast majority if cases.”
Other than the case number posted in my post just before your question, I do not have any other on line link and I do not have the case nor do I speak or read Danish. I have seen it referred to in other cases.
As to the other three you ask. They are not court cases because the Federal courts with jurisdiction over Federal law have not reviewed your specific question as to whether fluoridated water is a medicine/drug.
1. The evidence I have is from the Idaho Board of Pharmacy which, after my presentation to them, responded that fluoridated water was a drug and unapproved but only the Idaho Legislature could determine whether a substance was a legend drug.
2. Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Washington State Law:
RCW 69.38.010 (4). “Any other substance designated by the state board of pharmacy which, when introduced into the human body in quantities of sixty grains or less, causes violent sickness or death.” (Note: 60 grains is 3,889 mg. 15 mg of fluoride is considered by some lethal for children and 5 mg/Kg is considered lethal for adults.)
“RCW 69.38.020 Exemptions from chapter:
All substances regulated under chapters 15.58, (Agriculture) 17.21,(Pesticide) 69.04 (Intrastate commerce), 69.41, (Legend Drug) and 69.50 (Controlled Substances) RCW, and chapter 69.45 (Drug Samples) RCW are exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”
Ken, The Washington State Board of Pharmacy had a choice. Either designate fluoride as a poison or exempt as a legend drug. There is no exemption for fluoride as a food because it is too poisonous.
“RCW 69.40.030 Placing poison or other harmful object or substance in food, drinks, medicine, or water — Penalty.
(1) Every person who willfully mingles poison . . . in any food, drink, medicine, . . . and every person who willfully poisons any spring, well, or reservoir of water, is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not less than five years or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars.”
Keep in context the Federal Court Doe v Rumsfeld 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22990 where the Court ruled even under emergency conditions of war the Government cannot force an individual to be medicated with a substance which has not been specifically approved for the purpose and manner it is intended.
The Washington State Board of Pharmacy correctly responded that fluoride is a legend drug. (Legend means it is a prescription drug, rather than over the counter drug)
3. The US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research responded to my question of whether fluoride and fluoridated water were drugs that they were drugs but the FDA CDER was deferring regulatory action.
In 2000, the FDA responded to The Honorable Ken Calvert Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science House of Representatives that “fluoride when used for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or animal, is a drug that is subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation.” The letter continues, “No NDAs have been approved or rejected for fluoride drugs meant for ingestion.”
Ken, that last sentence is powerful. The FDA has three options for drug approval, either approval, rejection or withdrawal. So either no manufacturer has requested approval for fluoride ingestion approval or all of the applications have been withdrawn.
I have a rather lengthy legal review of fluoride court cases I can send to you via email, but it is too long for this forum.
Your culture is certainly different than mine and I don’t have time for diversions off topic.
You did pull good quality comments earlier which were on topic when they were opposed to fluoridation. However, you are not keeping your troops on task. I don’t have time to wade through unprofessional conduct you call humor.
You claim Connett and I have been evasive. But you fail to respond to the points. Indeed, there are many aspects and concerns to fluoridation without individual consent or without regulatory scientific review. That is not humorous because millions are being harmed.
You find humor in people being harmed and I do not. You cannot provide one single prospective randomized controlled trial of water fluoridation safety and efficacy and evade that overriding fundamental concern. And you think my concern is humor.
You find humor with the vast majority of studies finding many are ingesting too much fluoride.
You find it humor that too much fluoride ingested causes a reduction in IQ which maybe a lifetime of struggle for those harmed. For each IQ loss there is about an $800 to $1,000 negative economic impact. You find that humor. The vast majority of incarceration and those on welfare, drop outs from school and unemployed are in the lowest IQ. Each IQ point loss is serious if a person has few IQ. Schools suffer, society suffers and you brush off the harm with disregard for community and individuals considering such harm as humor.
If you want humor I can give you some serious humor, but you might find the humor hurtful, so I will not use that humor.
I would like to hear some respect for human life and health. We are talking a very serious subject which in my opinion, and I promoted fluoridation for 25 years, is the greatest public health blunder of the 20th Century. Unless you can coach your troops to become professional and scientific, I’m out of here to others who are professional.
Bill, in your attempt to use general opinions of various boards to prove that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a “drug” you have provided nothing other than your own personal interpretation of these general opinions twisted to appear to conform with your own personal opinion that fluoride at 0 .7 ppm is a drug. It is not, as the courts have repeatedly held…..your interpretations of opinions notwithstanding.
The trouble with people like Bill is they have never lived in a small country, so they dont appreciate the relativity of the closer nit society. once the issue is out in the public arena, the whole country is watching, and this was really noticeable with the Hamilton debacle, Once the antis started doing stupid stuff and the publicity of the same thing happening in N.S.W,was all over the media, people started to question their motives. We dont want any part of that, and the vote reflected their feelings. If you want the public here to support you, first be honest, second be sweeky clean, they failed on both counts.
The massive onslaught of scare-mongering and misinformation that comes from antis once it gets out into a public referendum here is sometimes just too much to overcome. Portland and Wichita are the most visible examples of this. Connett and his surrogates fail miserably when they attempt to sway small groups of intelligent civic leaders. When presented with accurate information from knowledgeable people, it is generally an easy task for these leaders to see through the misinformation presented by antis, and then make the right decision. However, when it gets out into public referendum where he masses are bombarded with misinformation from those who answer to no one, thus can and do say anything they please with no concern of repercussions, the result is a circus side show of confusion and chaos…exactly what antis depend upon to further their ideology. This was just too much for fluoridation advocates to overcome in both Portland and Wichita.
Bill’s attempt to divert from the facts and the science by harping on an irrelevant tangent as “jurisdiction” is exactly the tactics that are used on the public. Introduce irrelevant “points” such as this, make them seem of critical importance, throw in unsubstantiated claims of thyroid, cancer, IQ, etc, and the public is sufficiently scared and confused to give the antis a foot in the door. The tactics are unconscionable, but are a fact with which we must, unfortunately, deal.
The following article is helpful in understanding a possible sincere motivation for the anti F movement.
It appears to be a form of metaphysical essentialism. The belief that F for example is essentially toxic (evil or whatever). So F in any form, quantity or context is essentially toxic (bad). This thinking is deep seated in the primitive parts of our brains and only becomes more discriminating with cognitive development and education. You can easily spot examples in pre scientific culture. It is likely an adaptive response to contamination or disease and generalised hostility or phobia (racism etc).
Now two questions arise out of this. Are the spokespersons we have been dealing with, afflicted with this retarded (I use the term advisedly) development, or are they deliberately exploiting that tendency in their target audience? Are Bill and James metaphysical or methodological essentialists? I’ll leave that for others to consider.
Every person who willfully mingles poison . . . in any food, drink, medicine, . . . and every person who willfully poisons any spring, well, or reservoir of water, is guilty of a class B felony and…
(…facepalm…)
Chlorine.
Hello?
You find it humor that too much fluoride ingested causes a reduction in IQ which maybe a lifetime of struggle for those harmed. For each IQ loss there is about an $800 to $1,000 negative….
Such stupidity.
Show us the legions of American/ NZ/Australian citizens that have lost IQ because they drank…tap water.
Poke the bodies with a stick.
This kind of outlandish claim is something that can be tested.
Something that can be measured and observed.
So go forth and measure it. Crunch that data. Write up that paper.
Publish it in “Nature” and win your Nobel Prize.
Or shut your pie-hole you sad, paranoid crackpot.
Just read an interesting article in Counter Punch on that other magnificent contribution to pseudo science, the polygraph machine. I’m referring also of course to the ubiquity of parlour tricks like Ouija boards, Colonel this and Professor that emerged I believe from the moral disillusionment in the Deep South after the Civil War. It is sometimes referred to as fin de siècle. It is associated with a disillusionment with progressive endeavour, a characteristic perhaps of our post modern sentiments.
A similar effect can be observed with the decline of the Hapsburg empire. Once grand families, reduced by circumstances to using their cultivated talents to make a life somehow. A lot of dodgy science, psychology, philosophy and politics came out of Austria too as we well remember. In fact a lot of it ended up in the US where it landed in fertile soil. Chicago School social theory was one of the outcomes in my opinion. So it’s not surprising there is a receptive audience to pseudo science.
Human nature abhors a moral vacuum. When a once pervasive Zeitgeist begins to fail, every loony idea in the market begins to look credible.
Science denial is about ideology.
People can be motivated by their politics to think in a certain way.
This is a weakness from both the Left and the Right.
Lately, it’s the right wing that’s doing most of the heavy lifting in the market on pseudoscience but it wasn’t that long ago when it was just the loony left that were the main culprits.
Several commenters have brought up the topic of Libertarianism in connection with the anti-fluoridationists. There does seem to be a common theme. Libertarian thought and sloganeering pops up a lot on “those” blogs frequented by the anti-fluoridationists.
It will come as no surprise to readers here that the anti-vaxxers also co-opt the same gambits.
One of my favourite skeptical blogs has an insightful piece on how it all works.
Spot the parallels.
Enjoy…
Thank you gentlemen for reducing your personal attacks. I have lived in smaller countries, Austria, Philippines, Kenya, and Rhodesia and find the people more friendly and polite than large countries. Now, gentlemen, my request is to keep on topic.
Set emotion aside and objectively consider the big picture with a couple points.
Treating every person with chemotherapy for an infection without the patient’s consent is unethical. Infections are treated by focusing on the bacteria, not with the intent to chemically alter the enzymatic and structural physiology of the patient with chemicals.
Efficacy: Yes, there are lower quality studies some finding benefit and some finding no benefit. None of the studies are gold standard. Ethics is a major reason there is not one single prospective randomized controlled trial of efficacy. A huge problem and the main reason for lack of approval by drug regulatory authorities and rejection by most developed countries. Fluoridation is a public health measure for everyone, yet ethically gold standard studies cannot be done with the intervention. The ethics of fluoridation should shut it down.
Cost benefit should shut fluoridation down. A public health intervention should be measured in the public at large. For 40 years I have been repeatedly told by fluoridationists that we have not been fluoridating long enough to measure cost benefit. That is nonsense. Numerous insurance companies, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Delta and others have tons of computer data on the costs of treating patients in various communities. Yet there is still not one single study of the public at large comparing dental expenses and fluoridation. The closest by Maupome is of Kaiser patients and is reasonable. Yet it found only about half a percent savings, enough to pay for equipment repairs. Not the chemicals used or installation of the equipment or any medical or cosmetic expenses. If fluoridation actually reduced initial dental caries by 15-30% then we should see a huge savings in dental expenses, because most of my treatment clinically is replacing restorations. If the decay was actually prevented in the first place then life time dental expenses (especially restorations) in the fluoridated communities should be a fraction of non-fluoriated communities. Dentists in fluoridated communities should have lower income and there should be fewer dentists in fluoridated communities. Why is that not the case? Proponents should answer basic fundamental questions with scientific studies.
Safety: Randomized controlled trials on safety are difficult ethically. Ethically intentionally creating harm in cohorts is contraindicated. Therefore we need to rely on studies. At this time, there are numerous studies finding harm with fluoride at blood serum fluoride concentrations found in many people in fluoridated communities.
What is your blood serum fluoride concentration? That is the best method of measuring total exposure to fluoride. Rather than screaming pseudoscience, please provide me with the measured fluoride serum concentrations of sampling of the people in your community. You don’t know. A serious flaw in the science.
For example, CDC recommends <0.02 ppm fluoride in blood serum. Many studies find blood serum higher. And now studies are finding harm with fluoride blood serum below 0.02.
Gentlemen, only considering the fluoride concentration of water is historical science and science from the last millennium, in part because total exposure and individual physiology is significantly unique. Today, we measure patient blood serum concentration, urine concentration and tooth concentration of fluoride for our quality studies.
This whole discussion gives a captivating insight, a glimpse down the rabbit warren and into the psyche of a science denier’s mind.
Most people don’t enjoy being ridiculed or mocked (sexual proclivities aside)
It is often the fear of embarrassment or humiliation that provide a useful mechanism for learning from mistakes.
As the old saying nearly goes….Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. But…fool me habitually and call me an idiot.
Bill understands he is being ridiculed.
But it appears he doesn’t understand that his errors are the source of this derision.
He deflects responsibility for his errors away, trying to blame reactions to his errors on number of irrelevant “causes”; nasty pro fluoridators, cultural differences, poor humour, his hurt feelings, unprofessionalism or….. well anything really.
Anything other than taking ownership of his work and confronting the cold hard truth.
So why is he unable to learn? I find this infinitely baffling.
1) Perhaps he doesn’t see that he has made any errors therefore cannot be embarrassed.
2) Maybe he understands that he does make mistakes but dismisses them believing them to be only a minor distraction
3) Or, he (like Connet et al) understands all this and is “playing the game”
In Bill’s case, I doubt 3) is true. I consider Bill to be sincere with what he believes.
In James’s case I also consider that he is sincere. A look at his history it appears he has always dreamed of being an environmental lawyer, an Erin Brokovich if you will. He has chosen this path after a career of transactional, bread and butter type lawyer work in order to survive. Now towards the end of this career he is able to pursue his dream of saving the world from polluters.
They appear passionate about their cause…surely by submitting to such public ridicule they must believe in this cause…or have rhinoceros hides and huge financial interests at stake.
Perhaps this charge is more applicable to Connet, as Stuart aptly observes… “deliberately exploiting that tendency in their target audience”
Which leaves option 1) and 2).
For either position, there must be a substantial level of cognitive dissonance at play.
The answer may lie with Ken’s suggestion of “Confirmation Bias”.
Bill/James/Mary/others have this bias built in to personal schemas and are therefore largely immovable.
Perhaps these schemas are due to, as Stuart points out, a retarded (psychological) development during childhood that leaves the individual fixed within a framework of essentialism.
This may also help to explain the Messiah Complex that often emerges.
“The vast majority of incarceration and those on welfare, drop outs from school and unemployed are in the lowest IQ. Each IQ point loss is serious if a person has few IQ. Schools suffer, society suffers and you brush off the harm with disregard for community and individuals considering such harm as humor.”
Bill actually thinks he is on a mission to save the world (or the USA at least), as does James, and one day…just one day, the clouds will part and we will all see the light. And it will be good.
Yet…
If he (and others) cannot admit to simple, small errors then what hope do they possibly have with the Big Stuff? Science Denial appears to be the logical consequence.
MANY HAVE EXCESS FLUORIED IN SERUM
CDC: “Normal serum fluoride levels are <20 mcg/L (0.02 ppm) but varies substantially. . . .”http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sulfurylfluoride/casedef.asp Taves (‘66) suggested normal fluoride serum concentration was <0.013 ppm
Sowers had controls at 0.05 ppm (4th quartile). For me, this raises concerns. What if Sowers had controls at 0.13 ppm, would that have had even greater significance.
At what concentration of fluoride in blood do studies find harm?
Sandhu controls 0.042 ppm and tumors at 0.072 ppm (Xiang 0.064 ppm)
Zang controls at 0.04 ppm and 8 IQ loss 0.08 ppm
Rathe stones at 0.12 ppm
Hossney (2003) Mother’s Milk most samples – none detected
One would assume that an infants blood serum fluoride concentration would be not detected if mother's milk had no fluoride detected.
Rather than discussing psychology, lets talk about fluoridation and fluoride.
Certainly if fluoridation were a benefit, then stopping fluoridation should find a huge increase in dental caries in the population at large. 99% ofBritish Columbia stopped or has never had fluoridation and dental caries have decreased. (last I looked at the data)
A number of recent cessation studies show that stopping fluoridation does literally nothing to increase overall dental decay. Komarek et al, A Bayesian analysis of multivariate doubly-interval-censored dental data, Biostatistics 2005 6 pp 145-155
Modern studies find difficulty in measuring the benefits of fluoridation (no difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities) Studies by: Brunelle, Angelilo, Clark, Ismail, Slade, Kumar and Armfield JM. Spencer AJ 2004,
Not taking into account delayed tooth eruption makes early fluoridation studies “over-estimates of the benefits”….
Fluoride added to drinking water may have simply delayed caries in the past. Hardy Limeback DMD, PhD
low and moderate quality studies found 0.6 ppm F better than 1.0ppm. Edward & Strickler
If you wish to discuss the fluoride stuff, could you please answer my question I have already asked of you…perhaps starting with the studies related to Osteosarcoma…Levy..Bassin etc
we found that CWF levels in the respondent’s county of residence at the time of birth were significantly related to tooth loss. Our results imply that for every 4 individuals currently living in a county that fluoridated at their times of birth, 1 individual had 1 more tooth than if those individuals had not lived in a county that fluoridated. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis of a lasting effect from fluoridation exposure.8 Although there is some debate regarding the optimal timing of fluoride exposure in relation to tooth eruption, these first 2 findings are consistent with previous evidence that the impacts of fluoride exposure are less important once permanent teeth have formed.22 Am J Public Health. 2010 October; 100(10): 1980–1985.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.189555
Bill,
You inserted this paragraph into your comment.
“Treating every person with chemotherapy for an infection without the patient’s consent is unethical. Infections are treated by focusing on the bacteria, not with the intent to chemically alter the enzymatic and structural physiology of the patient with chemicals”
And……..your point is?
On its face, it makes little sense to this fluoride discussion.
Cut-and-paste, snippity, snip, snip, snip
First, you need to invest a little effort so that this paragraph makes sense – sprinkle a little context so that what you write conveys the point(s) you are trying to get across.
You then need to invest even more time and effort to construct a cogent argument so that what you write is persuasive.
As you feel hurt by my comments and believe them to be personal, I will make it a small linguistic shift.
Look closely now….focus…
Your paragraph is irrelevant and lazy.
Notice the sleight of hand?
The subtle change of word play?
I am levelling my criticism at what you wrote.
Not you as a touchy feely person.
Or as a gentleman, professional, dentist or any other label you wish to describe yourself in a weak attempt at imbuing respectability and gravitas.
Surely you can’t complain at this?
Now back to Fluoride…I have been patiently waiting since 3rd December for you views on the Levy study which stated;
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
Poor old Bill. I seem to be treating him badly and I don’t address him directly but there’s a reason for that. Bill is a symptom though I don’t think he realises it.
This article is about the economic policies accompanying the emergence of Libertarian thinking (something frequently confused with Liberalism).
It’s about the erosion of the US middle class and the common sense pragmatic thinking they were justly famed for. With the erosion of that a certain paranoia begins to emerge, a certain paranoia and (chills down the spine), an urge to scapegoat. It doesn’t matter who the scapegoat is/are (we well remember the last famous example), because it’s not about the scapegoat, it’s about the scapegoater.
Some call it Middle Earth where the fun loving inhabitants are mystified by extremism and always seek the Middle Way and peace is declared for footy, cricket and Xmas.
Instead of talking about heaven, why don’t you back up your myth of fluoridation with science?
I don’t have time to wade through all the posts of junk to pick out the little bit on fluoridation. And when I do find a spot, then there is no comprehension of science or understanding of treating the infectious process in humans and animals. There is a difference between using chemicals to kill bacteria such as antibiotics and chemotherapy to alter the hosts response, such as fluoridation. If you can’t grasp that simple difference then we need to proceed to a different aspect of mass treatment of non essential chemicals.
I do not remember anyone here giving a simple response to my question of the optimal fluoride concentration in dentin and enamel.
What concentration of fluoride in the enamel and dentin is optimal? 500ppm, 700 ppm, 1,000 ppm???? Or????
Bill everyone stops for a bit of light banter about other stuff as a break and you get all serious and want to get back into it without a input. You must be getting paid by the word
How about you use your index finger, move it a few millimetres, and scroll up only a few posts to answer the question I’ve been asking for you some time now….you know the one on fluoride…and study findings…and osteosarcoma
You know the Levy one…
Can you please stop prevaricating and stop using your own bluster and self importance as an excuse not to engage
Bill, here is a “simple response”: the public health initiative of water fluoridation has been demonstrated in countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies, to reduce the dental decay of entire populations, with no proven adverse effects. This is precisely what it is supposed to do. I’ll be glad to provide you with cites to as many of these studies as you would like.
Bill, your question about a theoretical “optimal” concentration for F in enamel and dentin, although a diversion, is at least an acknowledgement of the beneficial role played by F in bioapatites.
In effect it acknowledges that F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites. It acknowledges that there are problems if the e concentration of F is too low, and if it is too high.
This is what I have been trying to get through to Paul.
As for specific optima – I doubt that is simple and would not like to hazard a guess. I imagine it depends on the component, and – considering the active role of F at the surface of the tooth – it also depends on the depth below the surface.
BilI. It’s already been done many times and you know it. People are just sick of participating in a charade to represent you as a sage to your fan club.
I’ve mentioned before that waving individual or a handful of studies about achieves very little, for either side of the debate.
As mentioned ad nauseam it’s about the current consensus position.
If you want convince me or others to abandon the establishment’s consensus position of the past 60 years how about offering peer reviewed and published papers of meta analyses of papers dealing in fluoride toxicity and/or efficacy in dental treatment – both historically across the decades and analysis/ summarising the impact of recent research. Individual studies on this or that don’t shift consensus until this happens.
The scientific community says the position hasn’t changed. You and supporters say it has, or should have changed, but hasn’t for nebulous reasons. (And, as a lay observer, I have read far, far, far more misrepresentations of reality from your corner of the ring.)
My mother would wash my mouth out with soap if I was as hostile and mean as you. Please try to be professional. I have answered your question once and you did not spend the time to read what I wrote.
The study on osteosarcoma. Which one? Please provide the reference. The latest one I’ve seen was not specific for age and water ingested. The osteosarcoma/fluoride connection must be viewed at specific ages and carefully ensure cohorts did or did not ingest the fluoride. Unless the researcher actually goes to the water district and carefully ensures the water source is as reported, the data appears to be 10 to 15 wrong. And putting larger age groups together, waters down the data so no significance is found.
Now, be nice. I don’t have time for stupid nonsense.
You tell me to go to hell. What hole did you grow up in? Didn’t your mother teach you any manners. Even the barbaric African natives I grew up with are more cultured and civilized than you.
It appears you feel that science is secondary to consensus. Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.
The majority consensus of public health experts and dental associations in developed countries of the world are opposed to fluoridation. (I believe the research is by Zimmer). If you want to find big flaws in science, look at consensus.
Thank you for your more reasoned response. I’m surprised you doubted that Connett and I suggested or think there is no fluoride in tooth structure. Of course there is. I know Paul agrees. Paul, Kurt, I and others agree that fluoride is not an essential mineral.
You stated, “In effect it acknowledges that F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites. It acknowledges that there are problems if the e concentration of F is too low, and if it is too high.”
I think most would agree F is a component of teeth. Whether F is beneficial is the question at hand. I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride makes the teeth harder, more resistant to acid erosion and more brittle, in other words, prone to fracture. Indeed, preliminary studies indicate more complete tooth fracture in fluoridated communities.
When only dental caries at specific ages are evaluated, life time benefit is not considered and potential adverse effects are not included. A reasonable public health evaluation is to look at dental expenses. Dental expenses would include potential caries reduction, fluoride bombs, fluorosis treatment, fractured teeth, etc.
We both acknowledge that there maybe problems if the concentration of F is too low or too high in the teeth. To those using police powers to increase fluoride exposure, my fundamental question is: “How much or what range of fluoride in the teeth do you consider “optimal””?
Ken, that is a most fundamental question because that is the goal of fluoride ingestion is to increase the fluoride concentration in the developing tooth. If that is what we want, then how much do we want?
Your friends have told me to go to hell. And you are the moderator here. I think it time for you to create some civility among your troops.
Steve,
You said, “Bill, here is a “simple response”: the public health initiative of water fluoridation has been demonstrated in countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies, to reduce the dental decay of entire populations, with no proven adverse effects. This is precisely what it is supposed to do. I’ll be glad to provide you with cites to as many of these studies as you would like.”
Yes, I agree there are many on both sides of the fluoride controversy. But the quality of those studies finding benefit and not finding benefit are not good. All the studies have many flaws. Pick one and lets review it together. Send it to me at bill@teachingsmiles.com so I don’t miss the one you would like to review.
My mother would wash my mouth out with soap if I was as hostile and mean as you.
Bill, nobody cares. Shut up. Stop whining.
It’s not helping you at all.
It appears you feel that science is secondary to consensus.
Not “consenus”, you idiot. It’s >>>>>scientific<<<<< consensus.
Big difference, yeah?
Duh.
A scientific consensus does not appear by magic.
Nor does it change by wishful thinking.
You need work. Lots of work. Mountains of it.
A scientific consensus is the result of that work.
Trying to ignore or belittle a scientific consensus only makes you look stupid.
It’s more worky-worky and less talky-talky.
Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.
No, Bill. Nobody is putting you to death. We’re just laughing at you because you are making an ass of yourself.
You’ve got nothing.
The majority consensus of public health experts…
I don’t care about your conclusions.
It’s your methodology that’s important. Don’t just assert something and then hope that stupid people will gullibly take your word on this.
Demonstrate how anybody can find out for themselves that what you say is true.
You know what I do when I want to find out what the scientific consensus is on a particular topic?
I go straight to the top.
That’s my methodology.
I check out all the top scientific communities on the planet in the relevent field and see what they have to say on their websites.
It’s fast and super easy.
It works really well for all sorts fo things. Vaccines, evolution, HIV, dangers of smoking etc.
If I have a few more minutes to spare, I’ll even check out what the vast body of scientific papers weighs in on which side. The chances are high that somebody has already done an authoritative survey of the work done if it’s a topic that’s touted by science deniers.
So can you name any scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridiation?
(Before you answer, I should warn you that I have the CDC website available.)
Back to the EPA. The Safe Drinking Water Act says:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ” 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11):
I wanted to make sure I understood Federal Law correctly, so I wrote to the EPA with an FOI request and they responded:
“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”
FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10
In simple terms, FDA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT PEOPLE
EPA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT WATER
Lack of jurisdiction is why the NRC 2006 committee was instructed by the EPA NOT to evaluate artificial fluoridation. EPA has no jurisdiction over the addition of fluoride to water if it is less than the MCLG.
And if EPA had jurisdiction over substances added to drinking water for health-related purposes, then any manufacturer of a drug could simply dilute the drug in public water and the EPA and not the FDA or DEA would have jurisdiction. A meth or crack manufacture would only need to dilute their product with water and be exempt from drug laws. To avoid that loop hole, Congress prohibited EPA from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans and gave that authority to the FDA CDER.
One must be very fair in reading the research on benefit and risk. We can’t simply brush over studies which are contrary to our bias and call them poor, and ignore the same flaws in a study supporting our bias.
Fair and candid evaluation of data insists we rank each study on the level of confidence and put the appropriate weight to each study. When there are no prospective randomized controlled trials for efficacy and the FDA CDER has rejected the ingestion of fluoride for the prevention of dental caries as lacking evidence of efficacy, all good and reasonable scientists should be cautious and avoid the cowboy cocky sure attitude exhibited by some.
Yes there are many studies on both sides of the efficacy question, but they all have serious flaws which include one or more of the following:
A. Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors which reduced dental caries from about 12 cavities per 12 year old in 1930 to about 5.5 cavities when fluoridation became wide spread.
B. Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
C. Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
D. Inadequate size
E. Difficulty in diagnosing decay
F. Delay in tooth eruption not controlled
G. Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year around vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.
H. Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
I. Oral hygiene not determined
J. Not evaluating Life time benefit
K. Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
L. Dental treatment expenses not considered
M. Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
N. Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.
O. Genetics not considered
The scientific studies on fluoridation efficacy are not robust. Most countries have rejected fluoridation. But for sake of argument, lets accept moderately low quality studies for efficacy. They why should we not accept moderately low quality studies finding risk? Why is there a double standard? Accepting low quality studies of efficacy but demanding high quality studies demonstrating risk? Makes no sense.
I wanted to make sure I understood Federal Law correctly…
Bill, you have wandered off into kookville.
Don’t muse over the law.
That’s just sad.
Get a lawyer.
Maybe Mr Professor James Robert Attorney Deal can help you?
Pay him money.
Go to court.
Come back with the results.
Kthxbai.
One must be very fair in reading the research on benefit and risk.
Not really.
Most people are totally unqualifed to read research.
It’s like the law.
Doing research on the law without knowing what you are doing is a mug’s game. Before you know it, you will convince yourself that you are the next Perry Mason. That a great first step in embarrassing yourself in court and losing your shirt.
You can’t provide a coherent methodology.
“Being very fair” doesn’t mean anything concrete. It’s purely subjective.
“Fair and candid evaluation of data insists we rank each study on the level of confidence and put the appropriate weight to each study.”
Pure word salad.
My “fair and candid” evaluation may be totally different from your “fair and candid” evalution with is totally different from some other person’s “fair and candid” evaluation.
You are indulging in platitudes. Your methodology is so vague that it’s useless.
The scientific studies on fluoridation efficacy are not robust.
We know. We know. We know.
Get new material.
The scientific studies on vaccine efficacy are not robust.
The scientific studies on the link between smoking and cancer are not robust.
The scientific studies on HIV are not robust.
The scientific studies on GMO crops are not robust.
Claim CA202:
“Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.”
Bill, your misrepresentation is very frustrating and I think it is one of the reason other commenters are now ridiculing you. I never said that either Connett or you suggested there is no F in bioapatites. What I have pointed out is that Paul has avoided even discussing that issue as a “road that leaves nowhere.” Obviously because if he does it gets him into an area of considering a systemic role for F in bioapatites.
You want to have it both ways – to acknowledge what is accepted by science that F is a normal and natural component of the bioapatite structures and acknowledge that this has beneficial effects at appropriate levels – but to deny those effects are beneficial! And to do that you confound this beneficial role with higher concentrations and advance un-cited “preliminary studies.” That is not honest, it is avoidance.
Then you add to that with the childish description of a social health policy as using “police powers.” I find that very offensive. In a society we often take steps to improve the lot of our companions and children and you treat that as some sort use of “police powers.” You are making provocative accusations against people here who support the current understanding of the benefits of fluoridation and are attempting to discuss the science.
Yes, I am the moderator here – I have only excluded comments when they have had absolutely no contribution to the argument, been only abusive, are insulting in their blatant copypasta or clearly spamming. These are unfortunately common in Internet discussions of this issue. I think exclusions of these sort of comments has been very helpful in raising the level of discussion here.
I am aware that my moderation approach is now being used against me – which I guess I expected from the beginning. Local anti-fluoridation activists do. It forgive me for speaking up and daring challenge Paul. There normal response is to work hard to attack any individual who does this, by any silly means they can. But for you and Paul to turn on me and blame my moderation policies for your inability to deal with the science is hardly fair. To demand that I prevent comments which you don’t like is disingenuous. And to use the harsh exchanges that inevitably occur in such discussions as an excuse to opt out of the exchange and discussion I can only take as an inability to actually discuss the science properly.
Yes it would be nice if people didn’t lose their cool out of frustration and tell others to go to hell (actually haven’t seen that but I really haven’t been able to keep up my moderation is of necessity pretty light). But come on, to accuse your discussion partners of “using police powers” is just as bad, probably worse.
I realise that recent comments directed at you have treated some of your contributions with ridicule. But surely you can see why. You have used provocative language, have avoided issues and attempted diversions. People do get frustrated.
My suggestion is that everyone should back off and re-engage with the science in good faith. After all, the exchange between Paul and me is obviously coming to a conclusion – there is not much more time left for a good discussion. Why not make the most of it?
It appears you feel that science is secondary to consensus. Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.
I’ll be charitable assume you’ve been indulging in seasonal conviviality.
The majority consensus of public health experts and dental associations in developed countries of the world are opposed to fluoridation.
Firstly, I simply call that out as bullshit.
Secondly, my request for meta analyses on toxicity and efficacy was to establish whether your claims on the science are valid. This is not the the same as a contest on how many jurisdictions do or don’t fluoridate. Get on the programme and don’t spin meanings.
Not only do you seem reluctant to provide any such studies but also appear reluctant to even acknowledge that such studies might be in your interest, should your claims stack up. I draw my own conclusions on that.
“Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.”
Another example of Bill using any material that advances his cause. In fact many scientists (and geographers) knew the world was a sphere. Right back to Democritus and possibly earlier. It was priests who insisted the world was at the centre. That was the issue. Not its sphericity. Probably most long distance navigators understood the reality. It wasn’t science it was religious dogma. Bill (F deniers) and climate change deniers are the “Flat Earthers” of our times and for the same dogmatic reasons. It is some sort of religious conviction paraded as “science”. Take your choice. If you ignore the masses of scientific studies and seek out dodgy contrarian publications you are either a “Flat Earther” or a charlatan. Its your choice.
All this fiddle faddle about “robust” arguments and legalistic hair splitting is not going to convince people with reasonably developed critical faculties but it will fool some of the audience Bill is targeting. He knows most of them haven’t the nous or time to investigate the scientific literature exhaustively. By taking his claims seriously you are simply enhancing his stature in the eyes of the gawping classes who are happier watching TV program’s about aliens.
London: I see Neon Roberts (8) has been given the all-clear after conventional radiotherapy appears to have destroyed the remaining cancer tissue in his brain. This in spite of his mother bolting with him claiming the treatment would “fry his brain”. Wonder how she feels about fluoride?
This in spite of his mother bolting with him claiming the treatment would “fry his brain”. Wonder how she feels about fluoride?
We can all imagine the arguments she would use to justify her batshit kraziness.
We’ve read them often enough here over the last few weeks from her fellow travellers.
The same tired tropes. The same shopworn intellectual laziness.
The same conspiracy thinking.
Plus, as an added bonus, no doubt she would be very offended if someone pointed out that she was batshit krazy and would insist upon being treated with respect.
The same reason and logic that we use to torpedo the nuttiness of the anti-fluordiationists works very well to save the life of children like Neon Roberts.
Actually, let’s not imagine the arguments she would use.
Let’s listen to them.
Listen to how she justifies herself. It’s all so very…familiar.
Even “they” make an appearance.
Sally Roberts: I Stand By Decision To Fight Son’s Radiotherapy
“Yes, I agree, there are many on both sides of the fluoride controversy. But the quality of those studies finding benefit and not finding benefit are not good. Pick one and let’s review it together. Send it to me at bill@teachingsmiles.com so I don’t miss the one you would like to review.”
No, Bill, you are the one who claims there to be “many” studies demonstrating that fluoridation is not effective, not I. If you care to attempt to support this claim with cites to these “many” studies, that’s entirely up to you. There also is no “controversy” about the public health initiative of water fluoridation, simply unsubstantiated claims disseminated by small groups of very vocal activists who then cite these claims to be a “controversy”.
I have no interest in your “review” of peer-reviewed scientific studies. They have already been reviewed by panels of respected, qualified individuals in their respected fields, prior to publication in respected journals. They don’t require any further critique by you. Your opinion is simply your opinion.
For your information here are five such studies. I will gladly provide more if you so so desire.
Results
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively.
——Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD
CONCLUSIONS:
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.
——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Source
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
CONCLUSIONS:
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.
—–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Source
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. joej.mullen@hse.ie
Abstract
The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars.
—-Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
Murray JJ.
Source
Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
CONCLUSIONS:
Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities.
—-Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.
Source
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. jrlauris@fob.usp.br
“In simple terms, FDA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT PEOPLE EPA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT WATER
Lack of jurisdiction is why the NRC 2006 committee was instructed by the EPA NOT to evaluate artificial fluoridation. EPA has no jurisdiction over the addition of fluoride to water if it is less than the MCLG.”
No Bill,
The SDWA does NOT prohibit “the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water”. It prohibits any NATIONAL regulation to REQUIRE the addition of any substance for health-related purposes. It does not prohibit state or local statutes as long as their standards are no less than those of the EPA.
Your personal interpretation notwithstanding, the EPA regulates contaminants to drinking water, NOT simply “substances which treat water”.
“Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets legal limits on the levels of certain contaminants in drinking water. The legal limits reflect both the level that protects human health and the level that water systems can achieve using the best available technology. Besides prescribing these legal limits, EPA rules set water-testing schedules and methods that water systems must follow. The rules also list acceptable techniques for treating contaminated water. SDWA gives individual states the opportunity to set and enforce their own drinking water standards if the standards are at least as strong as EPA’s national standards. Most states and territories directly oversee the water systems within their borders”.
The EPA sets maximum safety levels for contaminants (MCLs), above which adverse effects may occur. The current mandated maximum safety level, MCL, for fluoride is 4.0 ppm. Additionally, as an added safety measure, the EPA mandates that all drinking water at the tap meets all certification requirements of Standard 60 of the national Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 mandates that no contaminant in water from the tap exceeds 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, well below the mandated maximum safety level set by the EPA, and no contaminant in fluoridated water from the tap exceeds 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. If fluoridated water did not meet these EPA mandates, it would not be permitted under law. It is not a matter that the EPA lacks jurisdiction over fluoridated water. It has full jurisdiction over it and has the authority to shut it down completely if it fails to meet any of it mandated standards.
The 2006 NRC committee was charged with evaluating the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs to protect the public against adverse effects. Specifically evaluating fluoridated water was not part of its charge not because of any jurisdictional question, but because it was out of the scope of the Committee. The Committee was not precluded from evaluating fluoride at 0.7 ppm, it was simply not charged with specifically evaluating a particular level other than the primary and secondary MCLs. The Committee was perfectly free to recommend the primary and/or secondary MCLs be set lower than 0.7 ppm if the Committee deemed that to be the appropriate level to adequately protect the public from adverse effects.
The EPA does not add ANYTHING to water. It simply regulates those substances which are in drinking water, naturally, or added, and ensures that its safety standards are upheld. If local water systems were to add illegal drugs or other illegal substances to their water, they would be subject to the laws governing those substances. Fluoride at 0.7 ppm is not a drug, nor is it an illegal substance. It is simply a mineral identical to that which already exists in water.
Funny you should mention “fried brains”. From a news article in Nebraska in 2009:
“But Bill Osmunson, a spokesman for the anti-fluoride coalition called the Fluoride Action Network, said dentists rarely look at studies.
Instead, they trust the word of their dental associations and university professors who are part of “incestual cesspools of infantile intellect.”
Dentists who spoke to the Daily News disagree with that contention, but Osmunson isn’t one to back down from his opinions.
“We know we are frying our brains with fluoride and fluoridated water,” said Osmunson, a dentist in the Pacific Northwest who pushed fluoridation for 25 years before jumping ship seven years ago.”
Please avoid the personal attacks and focus on the science. We are both frustrated at this poor method of communication. We both feel the other is evading the issues and failing to answer fundamental questions. I cannot understand why you don’t place value on personal freedom of choice. Obviously you feel there is a greater good than freedom. The benevolent king does have his promoters. People could swallow a pea size of toothpaste if they wanted fluoride and it would be cheaper and provide freedom of choice. To me it seems like those fluoridating might as well hand cuff people and hold them down and stick a needle in their arm At least an exact dose could be given.
Specifically to your comments in your post. I will try to cover each one at a time with your comments in quotations and my brief answer will try to be precise and have a question.
“Bill, your misrepresentation is very frustrating and I think it is one of the reason other commenters are now ridiculing you.” No Ken, they attack me because they don’t have science to support fluoridation. Good scientists don’t ridicule, they provide facts and research. The responsibility for the good science lies in the public health people requiring fluoridation.
Ken continues, “I never said that either Connett or you suggested there is no F in bioapatites. What I have pointed out is that Paul has avoided even discussing that issue as a “road that leaves nowhere.” My apology. I understand we all agree F is in bioapatites. Good, we are on the same page on that item.
Ken continues, “Obviously because if he does it gets him into an area of considering a systemic role for F in bioapatites.” We all agree F is in bioapatites and the discussion is regarding what role F plays. From my perspective, I think it is you who refuse to discuss the issue of how much fluoride you want in the bioapatites. We all agree it is there, but you refuse to give a concentration range which you desire. Yes, we all agree fluoride is in the body. How much do you want? A very scientific question. Why don’t you ask me the same question?
Ken continues, “You want to have it both ways – to acknowledge what is accepted by science that F is a normal and natural component of the bioapatite structures and acknowledge that this has beneficial effects at appropriate levels – but to deny those effects are beneficial!” Ken, that is what you think we are saying, but calm down and try to understand what we are saying. First, you suggest science accepts “F is a normal and natural component” and I would add a word of caution. Good scientists disagree. And if we could get specific with numbers, perhaps we would be on the same page. What do you consider to be the normal and natural concentration of fluoride in teeth to reduce dental caries? So far you have evaded my question. We have research on the subject and as a promoter of fluoridation, the number should be at the tip of your tongue. I would suggest there is usually fluoride in the teeth and am asking you, how much do you think is “normal” and “natural?”
Ken continues: “And to do that you confound this beneficial role with higher concentrations and advance un-cited “preliminary studies.” That is not honest, it is avoidance.” Ken, it sounds like you are avoiding my question. I would not suggest you are dishonest, I would suggest you don’t know the answer to the optimal tooth fluoride concentration. Specifically to your point. You think I am not honest because I avoid the what you call “beneficial role” of fluoride at 0.7 ppm. You have not heard me. There maybe a benefit of some fluoride in tooth structure for some people, but I find the evidence incomplete for 0.7 ppm fluoride in water. And I find the concentration of fluoride in water as a very crude unscientific intervention. We don’t know how much people drink or how much F they get from other sources. We are not treating water, we are treating people and they drink different amounts, etc. I think you are not (may I use your term) “honest” because you fail to consider total fluoride exposure for an individual. Read the EPA Dose Response Analysis and Relative Source Contribution reports from 2010. One third of children exposed to too much fluoride and that is with a 33% increase in the RfD. Total insanity. The NRC 2006 said 4 ppm was not protective, so instead of lowering the RfD, the EPA raises the RfD. (RfD is EPA’s term for Reference Dose. The amount they are suggesting as safe.) The reason they are raising the RfD is that if they didn’t, it would show closer to half of children under the age of 8 ingesting too much fluoride. And to make the data look better, the EPA only includes water consumption up to the 90% percentile. In other words, the EPA has no intent on protecting those who drink more water than the 90th percentile. And the EPA omits all infants in their evaluation. No protection or even consideration of protection for infants under six months of age. EPA must think infants don’t drink water or formula made with water.
Ken, Just because a substance such as lead or fluoride is incorporated in teeth or other body tissue, does not prove that it is beneficial or prove that it is normal. We all agree fluoride is in teeth. The questions are how much is desirable and how much is the person getting and is fluoridation the best method of delivery, and how much is safe for everyone and every tissue. If we are so myopic as to only look at the teeth, then an honest look tells us there is little or no cost benefit unless we estimate based on assumptions. Estimates of assumptions is not scientific proof. Please provide research on cost benefit to the population as a whole. Then lets look at how much cost benefit you have.
If there is benefit of fluoride in the tooth, then it should be measured in the community at large. Dental caries went from over 12 per 12 year old child to about 5 prior to fluoridations start nationally in the USA. Why? What caused the decline? No one knows and that confounding factor, that huge decay crushing unknown may have continued to reduce caries (like it has done in non fluoridated countries) and scientists thought it was fluoride. Just because two events happen, does not mean they are related. Just because fluoridation increased and caries decreased does not mean they are related, cause and effect.
Ken continues: “Then you add to that with the childish description of a social health policy as using “police powers.” I find that very offensive.” Ken, police powers is what the courts in the USA have repeatedly stated that fluoridation is a public health policy carried out under police powers. Those are not my words. In my graduate public health masters degree, we were taught all public health interventions are administered under police powers, in the USA. I think you will find the same in all countries. Public health authorities have enormous power and authority and operated under police powers.
Ken continues: In a society we often take steps to improve the lot of our companions and children and you treat that as some sort use of “police powers.” You are making provocative accusations against people here who support the current understanding of the benefits of fluoridation and are attempting to discuss the science.” Talk to knowledgeable public health experts and I think you will find consensus, that public health policies which do not require individual consent, are done under police powers, government authority.
Ken continues, “Yes, I am the moderator here – I have only excluded comments when they have had absolutely no contribution to the argument, been only abusive, are insulting in their blatant copypasta or clearly spamming. These are unfortunately common in Internet discussions of this issue. I think exclusions of these sort of comments has been very helpful in raising the level of discussion here.” Have you been fair to both sides? I think not. I know of one person’s post you removed and he is very scientific. However, telling me to go to hell appears to be acceptable for you and furthers dialogue and discussion?
Ken continues: “I am aware that my moderation approach is now being used against me – which I guess I expected from the beginning. Local anti-fluoridation activists do. It forgive me for speaking up and daring challenge Paul. There normal response is to work hard to attack any individual who does this, by any silly means they can. But for you and Paul to turn on me and blame my moderation policies for your inability to deal with the science is hardly fair. To demand that I prevent comments which you don’t like is disingenuous. And to use the harsh exchanges that inevitably occur in such discussions as an excuse to opt out of the exchange and discussion I can only take as an inability to actually discuss the science properly.” Ken, it is one thing to state your science in strong terms. It is another thing for you to suggest calling a person idiot and telling them to go to hell is furthering our understanding of fluoridation. When I visited NZ, everyone was super nice. This forum seems to have attacked the few exceptions.
Ken, “Yes it would be nice if people didn’t lose their cool out of frustration and tell others to go to hell (actually haven’t seen that but I really haven’t been able to keep up my moderation is of necessity pretty light). But come on, to accuse your discussion partners of “using police powers” is just as bad, probably worse.” Ken, please type in the words, “fluoridation police powers and see the list of documents. For example:
1. Pace Environmental Law Review at http://fluoridation.com/legal.htm Fluoridation of Public Water Systems: Valid Exercise of State Police Power or Constitutional Violation?
And many more. In order to force people to take a medication or chemical without their consent, police powers of an authoritarian state must be used. And I support the use of police powers for the control of highly contagious diseases and if at all possible with approved medications under a doctor’s orders when there are no other options. People can be instructed to swallow a pea size of toothpaste instead of fluoridated water. Cheaper and better and permits freedom of choice, but violates FDA CDER approved label.
Ken continues: “I realise that recent comments directed at you have treated some of your contributions with ridicule. But surely you can see why.” No I cannot see how ridicule educates or increases understanding. You have said my term of “police powers” is similar to someone telling me to go to hell. With further information, I would encourage you to reconsider. Do I ridicule you for your past understanding? No. Because no one knows everything and we can learn from each other. Ridicule builds walls. I want to tear down walls. We both have the best intentions, so lets be professional and not ridicule each other.
Ken continues: “You have used provocative language, have avoided issues and attempted diversions. People do get frustrated.” My apology for provocative language. Please point out what I have said which provoked you and I will withdraw and restate or defend the terms with science.
Ken continues: “My suggestion is that everyone should back off and re-engage with the science in good faith. After all, the exchange between Paul and me is obviously coming to a conclusion – there is not much more time left for a good discussion. Why not make the most of it?”
Bravo Ken. After all, in my opinion we all want whats best and this is a complex issue of huge significance to public health.
Steve Slott,
It is about 11pm Christmas Eve and I am spending it with you. That is how much I value your post. You were kind enough to provide citations to literature. Thank you. At this late hour, I will cut to the heart of the matter. I did not review all five of your citations in depth again, so I don’t remember all the particulars. For example, the Australian work by Jason has large numbers and is reasonably consistent but has numerous omissions which I have listed earlier, such as delay in tooth eruption, total fluoride exposure, difficulty in diagnosis, unknown confounding factors, diet, etc. I would love to go into detail on each problem with each study and it could take us several weeks. The heart of the matter is those studies are low quality as they have numerous weaknesses. But low quality studies showing benefit must not be dismissed. Just as low quality studies finding harm must not be dismissed. So for discussion, lets assume there is a benefit to fluoridation.
My question to you Steve, is of the 128 surfaces of adult teeth, what is the average number of tooth surfaces you would say have been saved from caries? From my study, I would suggest about half a tooth surface less in the fluoridated communities. And that is assuming there is no delay in eruption, difficulty in diagnosis (fluoride bomb), etc. Would you agree with half a tooth surface saved with fluoridated water?
So it’s back to your bankrupt science arguments is it Bill after virtually conceding its not the science after all, it’s the ethics?
What about the ethics of denying common sense measures that reduce dental caries for the sake of some ridiculous Libertarian ideology hatched by Austrian refugees who were nothing more than Social Darwinists.
Steve can you provide another link to the Nebraska news item? That one didn’t work but I see fluoridefree.com is criminally peddling the claim hypothyroidism is caused by fluoride. I, my parents, aunts and uncles grew up in Southland, New Zealand with varying degrees of enlarged goitre. Scientists and politicians unencumbered with Social Darwinist theories solved the problem promptly with iodised salt. Why does Bill O expect to be treated with respect when he elevates his stupid political ideology above the welfare of common people. Left to themselves many lay people do not make wise choices, partly because unscrupulous people snare these people with deliberate misinformation. Typically these misguided people talk about “researching” on the Internet when what they have really done is checked out some colourful misinformation site like Flouridefree or Fluorideclassaction.
I see the Fluoridefree site is on the market (for those of you who have no scruples about supplementing your retirement income by misinforming gullible lay people).
“One must be very fair in reading the research on benefit and risk. We can’t simply brush over studies which are contrary to our bias and call them poor, and ignore the same flaws in a study supporting our bias.”
your studies are no good
no your studies are no good
your studies are out of date
no your studies are out of date
your studies don’t address this
no your studies don’t address that
“From my study, I would suggest about half a tooth surface less in the fluoridated communities. And that is assuming there is no delay in eruption, difficulty in diagnosis (fluoride bomb), etc. Would you agree with half a tooth surface saved with fluoridated water?”
Thank you for admitting your having misrepresented the truth in claiming there to be no benefit from water fluoridation. Yes, as you finally admit, fluoride does, indeed, save teeth from dental decay. Now that we are on the same page with this, I agree that AT LEAST a “half a tooth surface” is saved through the public health initiative of water fluoridation. Now, simply working with your estimation of a “half a tooth surface” do you agree that in terms of untreated dental decay that the results of one half surface being decayed are potentially just as devastating as if one whole surface gets decayed? Do you agree that untreated dental decay whether in “one half surface” or one whole surface, can and does often lead to the loss, not only of that one tooth, but to the loss of an entire dentition? Do you agree that untreated decay in “one half surface” can and does lead to extreme pain, debilitation, life-threatening infection, and death?
Now that we have agreed that water fluoridation is a beneficial public health initiative all that is left is for you to understand that in the entire 68 year history of the initiative, there has never been any valid proof of adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level. Given that you agree that water fluoridation is beneficial, and given that there are no adverse effects, wouldn’t you now agree that there us no valid reason to oppose it?
I’ll keep my cuss words down to a minimum….I don’t take to kindly to all that soap ….
Anyways…I took the trouble to read what you wrote, aseein’ as you were a writing this so close to Christmas in all.
I will focus on the legal stuff, I have given you the NZ perspective so will shift of to your neck of the woods. Maybe Professor Attorney Deal could give me some pointers if I wander off the track and make a mistake or two?
You provided two references to back up your krazy idea that water fluoridation is (or should be) unlawful where you live.
This article is a article written in a journal 17 years ago. It’s not law, just some guys opinion. Yep…17 years ago…..
Surely it must be Christmas coz right at the end of this article all wrapped up with a shiny bow was this gift…..
“This Comment is dedicated to my dad, Ralph F. Balog, who has opposed fluoridation of public water systems since the early 1960s.”
That’s right! (wiping the tears from my eyes) Kinda sweet really.
But to top it off was this…
“The author received a B.S. from Parks College of St. Louis University in 1985, an M.S. from Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University in 1990, and a J.D. from Pace University School of Law in 1997.”
That’s right! the author wrote this the same year as he received his Law Degree. So, to use my oft used saying, not only didn’t he know his arse from his elbow but it was all for his dear old Dad!!
Oh Bill you really do have a sense of humour don’t you! (holding my sides to keep them from splitting)
This article is another opinion piece written by a Professor Edward Richards, LSU Law Center. It SUPPORTS the view that Fluoridation is a Proper Use of the Police Power, (More tears…splitting sides).
Bill, do you know what Police Powers are?
For the benefit of NZ readers it simply refers the to capacity of the States to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.
They are NOT some Orwellian Jackboot method of State control, simply a method of for the administration of law in the U.S Federal system.
OK Bill.
I did a little reseach of my own….spent all of 3 minutes and….
It appears that in the USA the leading authority is Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) where Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question.
Wonderful Steve and Christopher. Now that that’s all sorted and in the spirit of the season here’s the Southern Hemisphere version of a Xmas in Wales (probably the original according to John Clark).
“This is the work of a guy called Dylan Thompson. Dylan Thompson was a martyr to the turps. He frequently woke in unfamiliar circumstances and attempted to catch the speech rhythms of the sea. There was a guy in Wales who wrote something called ‘A Child’s Christmas in Wales’. This is the original in its entirety. It’s called ‘A Child’s Christmas in Warrnambool’.
One Christmas was so like another in those years around the sea town corner now, that I can never remember whether it was 106 degrees in 1953 or whether it was 103 degrees in 1956.
All the Christmases roll into one down the wave-roaring salt-squinting years of yesterboy.
My hand goes into the fridge of imperishable memory and out come: salads and sunburn lotions,
the brief exuberant hiss of beer being opened and the laugh of wet-haired youths around a Zepher 6,
the smell of insect repellent and eucalyptus and the distant constant slowly listless bang of the flywire door.
And resting on a formica altar, waiting for Ron,
the biggest Pav in the world;
a magic Pav,
a cut-and-come-again Pav for all the children in all the towns across the wide brown bee-humming trout-fit sheep-rich two-horse country.
And the Aunts. Always the Aunts.
In the kitchen on the black-and-white photographed beach of the past,
playing out the rope to a shared childhood,
caught in the undertow and drifting.
And some numerous Uncles, wondering sometimes why they weren’t each other,
coming around the letterbox to an attacking field in the Test match
and being driven handsomely by some middle-order nephew,
skipping down the vowel-flattening pitch and putting the ball into the tent-flaps on the first bounce of puberty.”
Bill – I find offensive comments like this from you: “you don’t place value on personal freedom of choice. Obviously you feel there is a greater good than freedom.”
“those fluoridating might as well hand cuff people and hold them down and stick a needle in their arm At least an exact dose could be given.”
“public health policies which do not require individual consent, are done under police powers, government authority.”
“Ken, it is one thing to state your science in strong terms. It is another thing for you to suggest calling a person idiot and telling them to go to hell is furthering our understanding of fluoridation.”
Now, I am not going to get my knickers in a twist, loose any sleep over this – or withhold you comments in moderation.
I can appreciate how you may be offended by comments from others here. I am too and many of them have been directed at me personally. But that, by itself, is not sufficient to withhold those comments in moderation as you and Paul seem to expect.
I have explained the relatively weak approach I am taking on this.
You say I have not been fair in my moderation. But why? You say “I know of one person’s post you removed and he is very scientific. However, telling me to go to hell appears to be acceptable for you and furthers dialogue and discussion?”
I suppose you are referring to the single comment of yours I witheld. That was a 6 page copy and paste, no change in formatting to exclude page numbers or preserve links or allow us to make sense of references. It was not at all offensive (from memory) but it certainly violated the criteria I am using. (This sort of thoughtless copypasta does offend me because I think it shows disrespect for other commenters). It is not a matter of not being fair – it was a matter of your overstepping a criteria. Yes, it is probably true that I get these sort of unaccompanied copypasta and video link posts mainly from those opposing fluoridation.
Perhaps the person I have held back most in moderation is Andy – he is not against fluoridation from what I can tell (probably more in support of), but he likes to make trouble and provoke others into silly and long exchanges often ending in crude language. His absence has been an improvement.
I think the best way of treating something you find abusive is ignore it, don’t allow yourself to be diverted, and deal with the science.
Stuart, when I used the link to fluoride-free before, it worked. Now it just takes me to I guess, what you saw, a site where they are trying to sell the website. I thought fleetingly about submitting an iffer of 2 cents, but then figured that would be way overpriced. The article in which Bill was quoted was on August 18, 2009. I have a pdf of the article but just not the site, if my link won’t work anymore. I’ll keep trying to find an online link. His statements as quoted, are very telling as to his ties to FAN and his disdain for authoritative entities that disagree with his personal ideology on this issue.
Ken,
There’s nothing more offensive or abusive than to use the Internet to promote outrageous lies. These people are like lawyers who seek a conviction no matter what or a discharge no matter what. In fact as we know, some of them are lawyers of that ilk. The public exists to be conned.
Dear Ken,
I have missed your response to the term “Police powers.” You found the term offensive and reasonable evidence for others to slander me. Did you do a search for yourself and see that the term is frequently used because fluoridation is done under the authority of police powers.
To be professional, a response from you is requested.
Do you agree police powers are used to fluoridate public water?
Do you agree police powers are used and that removes reasonable freedom of choice? After all, when we go to a restaurant or purchase processed foods we don’t know whether the water used in the food is fluoridated.
You guys love to twist words and be as dishonest as possible. Your lack of interest in honest scientific discovery or discourse makes discussion all but impossible. Please stick to the science and stop personal attacks.
If you quote me, then please put it in discussion. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion of a half a tooth savings in dental caries with fluoridation if no confounding factors are included, you leave out the full concept.
Now consider cost savings, if no confounding factors are included. Half a tooth savings would represent about $50 to $80 life time savings. Remember, the half a surface dental caries savings is one time.
80 years of fluoridation at about $1/year cost for fluoridation chemicals would represent no savings. Now consider the equipment installation and repairs and there is a loss with fluoridation.
And then the numerous confounding factors not included in fluoridation studies needs to be included and fluoridation is not a cost savings. That is the reason there are no good studies of the whole population on measured cost benefits. And the one study by Maupoum which is fair, found half a percent savings, enough to pay for repairs of equipment and not the chemicals themselves.
After more than sixty years of police powers taking away freedom and a lack of evidence of cost savings and no prospective randomized controlled trials and numerous studies finding risk of harm at blood serum fluoride concentrations at levels found in the community at large, and the EPA confirming one third or more of children are ingesting too much fluoride, any reasonable sane rational person with reasonable judgment would recommend a cessation to fluoridation. People wanting to ingest fluoride can simply swallow a pea size of toothpaste.
Hey…”You guys love to twist words and be as dishonest as possible”.
You’re not libelling me are you? I hope you have evidence to support your accusation…dishonesty is a pretty heinous crime you know.
If only I had a dollar….”People wanting to ingest fluoride can simply swallow a pea size of toothpaste”…sigh
Your lack of interest in honest scientific discovery or discourse makes…
Stop lying, Bill.
You wouldn’t know scientific discovery if it slapped you in the back of the head.
Ultimately, you are lazy.
You refuse to do the work that science demands.
You are more comfortable sitting on the sidelines watching real scientists get on with the job and you going “Nu Uh!”
It’s hugely unimpressive.
That’s why you are restricted to vanity press books and silly debates with strangers on the internet.
After more than sixty years of police powers taking away freedom…
Grow up.
Ranting about police powers and freedom will not help you.
Christopher explained to you in plain English what “police powers” meant in legal terms.
You may choose to ignore him but the rest of us won’t.
You can’t go “Ooogity-Boogity” and expect to frighten anybody with such hysterical language.
You are not dealing with children here.
Water fluoridation is old news. You lot have had almost 70 years to get your act together and you have nothing new to offer. What you are doing is plain silly.
Just look at the chumps you have been able to collect as your cheer squad.
Mary, IAN, Peter, Alison, Mel, Trish, James etc.
We’re not dealing with the sharpest pencils in the box.
With friends like them, you don’t need enemies.
These are people that fall for the “poisoned horses” story.
They happily gabble about personal ancedotes.
Dredging up studies from before WW2.
And they endlessly serve heapings of copypasta, copypasta and more copypasta.
They even steal internet exchanges and post them on their own blogs where they can “edit” any way they want!?!?
Shifting the burden of proof.
Gish Galloping.
It’s a never ending story of paranoid kooks and self-righteous wierdos.
Their methodology betrays them.
Bill O.
We’re not interested in your recapitulation of discredited arguments. What concerns us is your state of mind aka your persistent obsessiveness. Your either mad or running a dodgy strategy. I think both actually. Your prepared to use unscrupulous populist methods of marshalling political support from people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. And the same goes for your mates out here in New Zealand.
EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”
You say my comment that most public health experts in developed countries are opposed to fluoridation as bull shit. Read the literature on both sides of the controversy. Most European and Chinese Dental Associations and public health experts are opposed to fluoridation of public water. That leaves just a few developed countries in favor.
Science should be based on facts with good judgment rather than belief in traditional myths.
Judgment needs to remember that:
A. police powers are used to force everyone to ingest a dilute amount of highly toxic substance.
B. No prospective randomized controlled trials have been done.
C. Countries without fluoridation or fluoride salt have decreased caries to the same low levels. Clearly, fluoridation is not required to reduce dental caries in the public at large.
D. Police powers are used to give it to everyone when simply swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing and provide freedom without police powers.
E. Most developed countries (most EU countries, China, etc.) do not fluoridate their water. Most people in the world do not get fluoridation.
F. EPA (Source Contribution Analysis 2010 Figure 8-1) and experts (based on dental fluorosis) agree, most or many millions of children ingest too much fluoride.
G. Cessation of fluoridation in communities has not seen an increase in caries.
H. Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels. Like tobacco research, it is simply a matter of time before fluoridation will be stopped.
You are silent regarding police powers. If you are unwilling to admit you were wrong regarding police powers being used to fluoridate public water, then your ego is stronger than facts. Your reputation for honesty dictates you admit when the facts are irrefutable.
You say my comment that most public health experts in developed countries are opposed to fluoridation as bull shit. Read the literature on both sides of the controversy. Most European and…
Spare us the waffle.
Name a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
Judgment needs to remember that:
A. police powers are used to force everyone to ingest a dilute amount of highly toxic substance….
Are you talking about Chlorine?
It sounds like it.
Chlorine is a highly toxic substance…so…..um?
It’s stupid argument that will get you nowhere, Bill.
You have nothing.
“Science should be based on facts with good judgment rather than belief in traditional myths.”
A. “Police Powers are used to force everyone to ingest a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance”. This is your idea of ‘ facts with good judgement’? The use of inflammatory rhetoric and a misrepresentation of the facts in order to fit your personal ideology? No one is “forced” to ingest fluoridated water by “police powers” or anything else. You are confusing the term “inconvenience” with the term “force”, and the concept of public health initiative with the inflammatory concept of “police powers”. We ingest “a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance” every time we ingest ANYTHING.
B. Fine, perform whatever randomized controlled trials you wish on the effect of a minuscule few parts per million of a fluoride ion, identical to that which man has been ingesting, in the same concentration range as exists in fluoridated water, since the beginning of time. In the meantime, in the absence of any adverse effects, there is no valid reason to cease water fluoridation while you perform your tests.
C. Cite the peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate your implication that fluoridation is the sole variable in your claim that “Countries without fluoridation or fluoride salt have decreased caries to the same low levels.” Snapshots of data do not constitute peer- reviewed studies.
D. “……swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing….”. This is just a statement demonstrating ignorance of the mechanism of action fluoridation. Go back and review the literature on topical and systemic actions of fluoridation before attempting this nonsensical argument again.
E. “Most developed countries (most EU countries, China, etc.) do not fluoridate their water. Most people in the world do not get fluoridation.” How exactly is this of any relevance, whatsoever, to the decisions local leaders make in the best interests of their citizenry, in accordance with the conditions that exist in their own locales?
F. Please cite specifically where the EPA and a consensus of “experts” state that the mild to very mild dental fluorosis that may occur with water fluoridation is an adverse effect, or that it outweighs the benefits of water fluoridation.
G. “Cessation of fluoridation in communities has not seen an increase in caries”
Cite specifically the peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate this.
H. “Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels.” Cite specifically the peer-reviewed research, since the 2006 NRC report, to which you refer.
“Like tobacco research, it is simply a matter of time before fluoridation will be stopped.” Not hardly. According to the latest CDC report, The United States is now currently 74.6% fluoridated, an INCREASE from the 73.4% in 2011.
Bill
A I dont see any police outside my door forcing me to ingest fluoride
B 70 years of use should be enough
C Show me the proof
D see A
E E.U countries use other means to get fluoride, China has high levels of fluoride in groundwater. And most of the world is not on water from a public supply, so that could be why most of the world do not use fluoride
F And mild fluorosis is a big problem, not at .7PPM
G If you read the reports you will find that fluoride use at an early age is the most important time to build a solid tooth structure and if fluoride is stopped the benefits are already laid down .The children that suffer are the ones born into a non fluoride environment
H The research is getting stronger not weaker and the statement is pie in the sky stuff
Bill the real story here is you use China as an example of a country that has stopped fluoride Yes? And the organ grinder has all this research that fluoride in china causes them all to get brain disease and all the nasty photos of bone deformity, So you have to wonder about the quality of the arguments that are at the bottom of the barrel
You may not have read when I explained to you that Police Powers in the USA mean someting very different to what they mean to people here in NZ.
Are you being culturally insensitive here when you pursue this line of inquiry?
My advice to you is to substitute the words “Police Powers” with “The law”.
And yes, my apologies you did give me answer (albeit confusing) to my question on the Levy (recent Osteosacarma Study)
You say my comment that most public health experts in developed countries are opposed to fluoridation as bull shit. Read the literature on both sides of the controversy. Most European and…
Spare us the waffle.
Name a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
Seconded, your claim was “The majority consensus of public health experts and dental associations in developed countries of the world are opposed to fluoridation.”
Show us a sample their statements, opposing the practice of fluoridation. Until you do, and show it to be a majority position, I still call you out as talking bullshit.
I posted a long list above and if you read the literature you would know the list of scientific and government organizations opposed to fluoridation is very long. I have spent over 11,000 hours in the last few years on fluoridation. If you only read one side of the literature, then you will get a biased view.
Do your homework and you will stop supporting fluoridation of public water.
I have given you state and Federal law which define a highly toxic substance poison as one which causes violent sickness or death in mice at less than 50 mg/kg bw. (Mice are about 7 times less sensitive to fluoride). That is the legal definition and I have not seen any reputable scientist disagree with the legal definition of toxic and poison. You call the law, ” inflammatory rhetoric and a misrepresentation of the facts.” Are you also claiming that the SDWA ad the FDCA are inflammatory rhetoric and misrepresentation of facts? Is there any law which you abide by, or do you reject all laws of the land? The concentration of the highly toxic substance put into water is not part of the definition. Jurisdiction is determined based on the toxicity of the substance and intent of use.
Numerous court cases I posted to links earlier confirm fluoridation is provided under police powers. Do a web search for “fluoridation police powers.” Those in NZ may claim they do not fluoridate under police powers, but I would need to see their court cases. Under what authority can freedom of choice be taken away from someone to give them a highly toxic substance without their consent when, for example edentulous people, the substance has no benefit? Only authoritarian state power has such authority. Maybe a different term, but same authority.
Dr. Slott, you said: “No one is “forced” to ingest fluoridated water by “police powers” or anything else. You are confusing the term “inconvenience” with the term “force”, and the concept of public health initiative with the inflammatory concept of “police powers”. We ingest “a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance” every time we ingest ANYTHING.
Dr. Slott, if you read the law, highly toxic is specifically defined by both state and federal law. We do not ingest a highly toxic substance every time we ingest ANYTHING. Please provide laws and definitions for your terms. You are dead wrong and as a scientist you need to be much more careful before you make wild unsupported statements. And further, without label, it is virtually impossible to avoid fluoridated water even if a person drinks and bathes in bottled or reverse osmosis water because it is put into the manufacturing of foods and beverages.
B. Dr. Slott, you said, “Fine, perform whatever randomized controlled trials you wish on the effect of a minuscule few parts per million of a fluoride ion, identical to that which man has been ingesting, in the same concentration range as exists in fluoridated water, since the beginning of time. In the meantime, in the absence of any adverse effects, there is no valid reason to cease water fluoridation while you perform your tests.”
Before a substance is marketed with a health claim, the FDCA is very clear, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to gain FDA CDER approval. It is not the responsibility of the patient or public to do the research. The manufacturer needs to get the research, present it to the FDA CDER for them to evaluate whether the research shows effectiveness and safety. So far, the FDA CDER who are the best in the world evaluating research for effectiveness have said the research is incomplete. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to provide the research. It is illegal for manufacturers to market until the research has been approved by the FDA CDER. That is Federal and state law.
And further, Dr. Slott, it would be virtually impossible to gain human study approval for any RCT of fluoridation. Any university human research review would have difficulty approving a fluoridation study.
C. Dr. Slott said: ” Snapshots of data do not constitute peer- reviewed studies.” I am absolutely in agreement with you. That is why those manufacturing the fluoridated water must by law, provide quality studies. Snapshots simply do not provide enough confidence to give everyone an unapproved substance.
D. Bill said “……swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing….”. Dr. Slott said: “This is just a statement demonstrating ignorance of the mechanism of action fluoridation. Go back and review the literature on topical and systemic actions of fluoridation before attempting this nonsensical argument again.”
Dr. Slott. you make no sense because you didn’t calm down and read what I wrote. I’m not talking about topical. I said, “swallowing fluoride toothpaste.” Are you suggesting swallowing fluoride in the form of fluoridated water and swallowing the same amount in toothpaste is different? I am not saying topical is the same as systemic. Please read my words. I’m saying SWALLOW a pea size of toothpaste. Each pea size of toothpaste, the normal amount of fluoridated toothpaste which should be used for brushing, has 1/4 mg of fluoride, the same as a glass of fluoridated water. 1/4 mg and 1/4 mg. Same thing. Don’t call me ignorant with personal attacks when you don’t read what I say.
E. Bill said; “Most developed countries (most EU countries, China, etc.) do not fluoridate their water. Most people in the world do not get fluoridation.” Dr. Slott responded: “How exactly is this of any relevance, whatsoever, to the decisions local leaders make in the best interests of their citizenry, in accordance with the conditions that exist in their own locales?” Bill responds: “The relevance is in response to claims that most or all scientists support fluoridation. Most do not support fluoridation and most don’t fluoridate.” Dr. Slott, you and I understand that if everyone or no one agrees with a scientific theory, that does not make the theory right or wrong. But some on this thread seem to think that science is a team sport and if more people believe one way or another, then the majority has the truth. As you and I know well, the majority is not always right.
F. Dr. Slott asks: “Please cite specifically where the EPA and a consensus of “experts” state that the mild to very mild dental fluorosis that may occur with water fluoridation is an adverse effect, or that it outweighs the benefits of water fluoridation.” Dr. Slott. You fail to understand the Safe Drinking Water Act and the roll of the EPA when you ask “that it outweighs the benefits . . . “. The EPA is prohibited by Congress from determining the benefits of any therapeutic chemical or to regulate any substance added to water with the intent to treat or prevent disease in humans. You are looking to the wrong Federal agency to determine the benefits of fluoridation.
G. “Cessation of fluoridation in communities has not seen an increase in caries”
Cite specifically the peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate this.
Dr. Slott: Do I have to do your homework at every turn and every bend in the fluoridation review. Certainly you have read the studies. Look at British Columbia, now 99% fluoridation free and the lowest rates of caries in all of Canada. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562
Cuba: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780 “following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds (from 1. 1 to 0.8) and DMFS (from 1.5 to 1.2). In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease (DMFT from 2.1 to 1.1; DMFS from 3.1 to 1. 5), while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased from 4.8 (1973) and 33.3 (1982) up to 55.2%.”
East Germany: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515 “Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased during the years 1993-96, following the cessation of water fluoridation. ”
Thylstrup-Fejerskov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16674751 “When fluoride was removed from the water supply in 1992, the prevalence and severity of TFI scores decreased significantly from the 1993-94 survey cycle when compared with the 1996-97 and 2002-03 survey cycles.”
Dr. Slott, as a student and educator of fluoridation, I’m sure you have seen those and other studies on cessation.
H. “Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels.” Cite specifically the peer-reviewed research, since the 2006 NRC report, to which you refer.
I posted them earlier and Ken removed them. So I don’t think he would permit me to post more research. For some reason, he is opposed to too much research posted which opposes fluoridation. You can look the research up. Specifically, look at blood serum fluoride concentrations. The research is nailing the last few nails in the coffin of fluoridation. Read the research.
“Like tobacco research, it is simply a matter of time before fluoridation will be stopped.” Not hardly. According to the latest CDC report, The United States is now currently 74.6% fluoridated, an INCREASE from the 73.4% in 2011.
Dr. Slott. Please read your comment at E above which to this very point of “majority rules the truth” states, “How exactly is this of any relevance”.
We both use “majority position” because some people think the “majority” of people have greater wisdom when it comes to science. Like the majority of people at one time thought the world was flat so the world is flat. . . “the majority can’t be wrong.” (Obviously not true.) So providing lists of supporters on one side or the other is simply not significant evidence.
Dr. Slott, just because more in the USA are being fluoridated because of false marketing, tells us clearly that those promoting fluoridation have not read the research. You keep asking for research which has been published repeatedly for years. A clear sign that you are marketing a public health policy without a careful review of the scientific literature. It is time for you to carefully examine both sides of the fluoridation controversy. I assure you, a careful review of research is in the words of a University of Washington Public Health MD Professor “like a knee in the gut.”
yeah right, sure you did, can you link to it please, we’ll see if it matches your claim.
I have spent over 11,000 hours in the last few years on fluoridation.
I don’t think that revelation is having the impression upon me that you hope for, whatever that might be…
… 11,000 hours, and you haven’t yet collated a handy file of the position statements of all the public health authorities you claim oppose to the practice of fluoridation.
Yes, and scientific consensus is not just any old consensus e.g. Flat Earths, Witchcraft, Intelligent Design and other conspiracy theories, it’s a consensus based on evidence, experimentation and rational implication.
“Punctuation marks are symbols that indicate the structure and organization of written language, as well as intonation and pauses to be observed when reading aloud.
In written English, punctuation is vital to disambiguate the meaning of sentences. For example, “woman, without her man, is nothing” (emphasizing the importance of men) and “woman: without her, man is nothing” (emphasizing the importance of women) have greatly different meanings, as do “eats shoots and leaves” (to mean “consumes plant growths”) and “eats, shoots and leaves” (to mean “eats firstly, fires a weapon secondly, and leaves the scene thirdly”).”
Ok, Bill, it seems we’re going to have to go back through your laundry list, yet once again.
A. The only thing you have presented in regard to the law, is your opinion as to how you wish it to be be applied to water fluoridation. This is meaningless. Again, if you want to argue your personal interpretation of the law, take it to court. I did not call the “law” inflammatory and misrepresentative of the facts. I called your rhetoric inflammatory and misrepresentative of the facts. I stand behind that statement. You are confusing the “law” with your own, personal interpretation of the law. Two different things.
There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels. This includes plain water. If you want to describe fluoride at the optimal level as “a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance”, then you need to use that same description for ANY substance that we ingest.
Once again, the FDCA has no jurisdiction over fluoride added to water at the optimal level. In the United States. the EPA has full jurisdiction and regulatory control over it. Thus, it is irrelevant about that which you deem the FDCA to be “very clear”.
“….it would be virtually impossible to gain human study approval for any RCT of fluoridation.”
Yes, Bill, exactly as I have been saying. So you might as well cease demanding RCTs for fluoridation. Since RCTs are “virtually impossible”, we must use the next best thing, which are observational studies. We have countless, high quality, peer-reviewed, observational studies demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation, and no proof of any adverse effects.
C. You agree that snapshots of data are insufficient to arrive at conclusions. Yet, you use snapshots of data to make this claim: “Countries without fluoridation or fluoride salt have decreased caries to the same low levels. Clearly, fluoridation is not required to reduce caries in the public at large”. Again, provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific study to support your implication that efficacy of fluoridation is the sole variable in the comparison of caries incidence between “fluoridated and non-fluoridated” countries. As you have agreed, snapshots of data are not sufficient to make such a claim.
D. “Dr. Slott, you make no sense because you didn’t calm down and read what I wrote. I’m not talking about ‘topical’, I said ‘swallowing fluoride toothpaste.’ Are you saying swallowing fluoride in the form of fluoridated water and swallowing the same amount in toothpaste is different?”
Bill, here is exactly what you wrote:
“Police powers are used to give it to everyone when simply swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing and provide freedom without police powers”.
You equate swallowing a “pea size” of fluoridated toothpaste with water fluoridation. I fail to see how your statement could be read any differently. I stand by my statement. To claim that swallowing a “pea size” of fluoridated toothpaste “would do the same thing” as water fluoridation, demonstrates your ignorance of the topical and systemic actions of water fluoridation. That you don’t understand the fallacy of your statement is even more evidence of your total lack of understanding of how fluoridation works. You, obviously didn’t take my advice, so, again, I urge you to research the mechanism of action of fluoridation before attempting this nonsensical argument again.
E. “Most don’t support fluoridation and most don’t fluoridate”. Fine, Bill, provide your list of worldwide scientists who do not support fluoridation, as compared with those who do support it, and then your calculations as to how opposing scientists comprise “most” of the scientists in the world. Also, provide your factual evidence that the reason countries may not fluoridate is due to these “most” scientists who do not support fluoridation. Your opinion is not factual evidence.
F. “The EPA is prohibited by Congress from determining the benefits of any therapeutic chemical or to regulate any substance added to water with the intent to treat or prevent disease in humans. You are looking at the wrong Federal agency to determine the benefits of fluoridation.”
First of all, Bill, if this were true, then the EPA would be prohibited from regulating chlorine, ammonia, or any other substance added to water for the purpose of preventing disease in humans. That is precisely for what these chemicals are added to water, and they are most certainly regulated by the EPA, exactly as is fluoride added to water at the optimal level.
Second, your statement was:
“EPA and experts (based on dental fluorosis) agree that most or many millions of children ingest too much fluoride.”
Your clear implication with this claim was that the EPA and “experts” deem fluoride addition to water detrimental because they “agree” that millions of children ingest too much fluoride. I’m not the one “looking to the wrong Federal agency” for anything. I simply asked you to provide valid support for your implication that the EPA and “experts” deem fluoridation detrimental, based on incidence of mild to very mild dental fluorosis. If this was not the implication you intended with your claim about “agreement” of these entities, fine, explain what is the relevance of your claim, in regard to water fluoridation.
G. “Dr. Slott: Do I have to do your homework at every turn and every bend in the fluoridation review.”
Bill, I’d be happy if you would simply do your OWN homework from time to time. In regard to cessation of fluoridation, you do realize of course that the children cited in your studies have already received the benefit of fluoridation within their developing teeth, therefore the improvements in rates of decay would still be attributable to fluoridation, even though it had ceased for whatever time period.
Additionally, contrary to your attempt at implying a simplistic conclusion that these studies indicate non-effectiveness of fluoride, no.
“CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a complicated pattern of disease following cessation of fluoridation. Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population with generally low caries experience, and living in an affluent setting with widely accessible dental services. There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas.”
——http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11153562/
And, the La Salud study is an excellent example of how fluoridation and other preventive measures can work together to initiate and maintain dental decay resistance. Fluoridation at the early ages followed by measures such as fluoride rinse programs as they grow older can combine to be very effective toward maintaining a lifetime of good oral health.
——http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10601780/
H. Sorry, Bill, it’s not my responsibility to “look the research up” to support your claims. Again, please cite peer-reviewed studies to support your claim that “Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels”.
“Dr. Slott, just because more in the USA are being fluoridated because of false marketing, tells us clearly that those promoting fluoridation have not read the research. You keep asking for research which has been published repeatedly for years. A clear sign that you are marketing a public health policy without a careful review of the scientific literature. It is time for you to carefully examine both sides of the fluoridation controversy. I assure you, a careful review of research is in the words of a University of Washington Public Health MD Professor ‘like a knee in the gut.’ ”
Bill, please provide valid evidence for your opinion that fluoridation in the U.S. Is due to “false marketing”. Be specific as to whom is providing this “false marketing” and provide evidence as to why you deem it to be “false”.
I see nothing that “tells us that those promoting fluoridation have not read the research”. I keep asking for this “research” you claim exists, but you continue to fail to provide any. Your personal opinion does not constitute “research”.
I’m not “marketing” anything, and, as your comments have aptly demonstrated, I have far better researched, and have a much clearer understanding of the issue of water fluoridation than do you.
You have not read my posts. You have not read the laws I cited. You are not paying attention and then you suggested it is all my opinion. NO YOU ARE WRONG. Try reading the SDWA yourself and ask the EPA.
The SDWA says, “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ” 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11):
So I asked the EPA what that meant and they responded, “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.” FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10
Before we go through the other items and I first need to spoon feed you with the basics. If you understand the two statements above, and you read the EPA DRI and other EPA documents, and the NRC 2006 report, the EPA is consistent that they do not regulate the addition of fluoride to public water. EPA scientists admit that fluoride is a protected pollutant.
So lets work on that one item before we proceed to the others. More than one item seems to get too confusing.
But just so I won’t be accused of not adding anything substantive;
Like a drowning Charlton Heston grasping for his Colt 45 in a vain effort that it will keep him afloat, you cling desperately to your idea that water fluoridation is “illegal”.
Bill.
You are arguing minutiae failing to understand that when you finally go,
“A Ha! gotcha!” The world has ticked on by, completely unaware of your desperate, “I’m here to save the world” musings.
As said so many times before in this post, if you don’t like it/don’t agree with it then get together with Attorney Deal and change it. Don’t pretend to be a lawyer.
I suggest you do however go to Law School if you are serious about trying to change the world. Apart from giving you several lessons in Laws 101, I do recall you had an issue with definitions of some words… “jurisdiction” seems to ring a bell. Perhaps it was because you “put it were you shouldn’t ‘ave so regularly” – so to speak.
As an aside, don’t you think it a bit strange that although Jamesrobertdeal is a lawyer from your neck of the woods, he hasn’t given you a few pointers on the legal system or jumped to your aid when the going gets tough? Or has he?
Fluoridation violates numerous laws. Just because those laws have not been enforced does not mean that fluoridation is thereby legal. Fluoridationists are scofflaws. They are scoffers in general. They have no substantive arguments, so they just scoff. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/illegal.
“So I asked the EPA what that meant and they responded, “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.” FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10″
Primary sources Bill, Primary sources!
You asked, they answered?
You are being a silly Billy
So….:”The Safe Drinking Water Act”
Who’s Act? What provision of the Act? When was it enacted?
and you will love this….which jurisdiction does it cover?
Ah! Mr. Deal.
Here we go again. Scrape up a few more gullible clients for your class action? This isn’t for you. Its for those who might be “impressed” by your blather.
Mr Deal, failed lobbyist and self appointed expert takes stuff out of context and like many of his friends uses scare tactics. It’s about dosage you see. Every toxin known to science exists in the environment. Every breath of air contains a few molecules of lead, arsenic and water, tea leaves, fish, and many other things contain trace amounts of fluoride, mercury, magnesium. Many if not most of the minerals in some degree are essential to animal well being. Some environments even contain toxic levels of fluoride and other minerals. People generally avoid living in those places. but even in those toxic (to us) environment life thrives in one form or another.
For optimal dental health, the World Health Organization recommends a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre), depending on climate.[6] Adverse effects are possible at fluoride levels far above this recommended dosage. The U.S. Health and Human Services Department recommends 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water – the lower limit of the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
What with tooth paste and water fluoride levels have increased in a number of environments to the point where people might stray above the optimal level. This is (or meant to be) continuously monitored and adjustments made where necessary. Tooth paste manufacturers are not forced (by any imagined “police action”) to include fluoride. They do so because they
a) recognise it is a good thing and
b) recognise their customers know it is a good thing.
In high concentrations, soluble fluoride salts are toxic and skin or eye contact with high concentrations of many fluoride salts is dangerous. Referring to a common salt of fluoride, sodium fluoride (NaF), the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[1][2][3]Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg) than lethal doses.[4] Although helpful for dental health in low dosage, chronic exposure to fluoride in large amounts interferes with bone formation. In this way, the greatest examples of fluoride poisoning arise from fluoride-rich ground water.[5]
If you want to avoid the dreaded contamination you would have to live in a sealed chamber with all of your biological requirements artificially synthesised. You might as well live in an asteroid.
In the meantime let us apply common sense and science to making our environment as beneficial for as many as possible as practically as possible.
Chlorine is a health related additive to reticulated water Bill! Why don’t you tick them off about that? An ill considered response by some EPA functionary might serve your purposes Bill but it ain’t going to stand up in a court of law.
Chlorine evaporates out in a few hours if you just leave a pitcher sitting out. Fluoride, lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and thallium do not evaporate out. Chlorine is there to kill bacteria. The other contaminants are add allegedly to affect health.
You are not qualified to say that a large amount of fluoride, lead, and arsenic plus a small amounts of mercury, cadmium, and thallium are safe for all people to consume for life, with some people drinking ten times as much as others. All to reduce tooth decay a few percent, when other methods are just as good or better. The fact that you defend such a preposterous idea shows that you fluoridationists are suckers.
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
I replied :
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
And then you ran away.
This happened on the 3rd of December on this very thread.
Still waiting here.
(…crickets chirping…)
(…James Robert Attorney Deal babbles away and furiously waves his hands in the air. People point at him and laugh….)
(…more crickets chirping…)
James?
Hello?
Name them. How hard can it be?
Name them.
Well james if your facts were watertight. FANN would not have to employ you to put the frighteners up any city council that decides that fluoride is a good thing and decides to hold a referendum on it instead of your preferred tribunal ,that you can control. IT is a case of we cant win by fair means because the people see through the lies we will prosecute them . One day we might win
“EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a ‘chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.’ ”
“Do not ignore scientific information just because you disagree with it, which is what fluoridationists do.”
Did you just now discover this blurb of info on “fluoridealert.org”? C’mon, man! You’re getting behind! Your fellow antifluoridationist copy/pasters have been pasting that one for months now.
Here’s a flash for you. Fluoridationists do not “ignore” RELEVANT scientific information. We simply know what is important, what is not….what is relevant, what is not. Those EPA lists do not take into consideration concentration levels. They just classify substances according to a particular characteristic they may have at ANY concentration. If you’ll actually read the lists on the primary EPA site, you’ll see a lot of familiar substances, substances that you ingest every day, AT THEIR PROPER CONCENTRATIONS. While fluoride at high concentrations is most certainly toxic, as is every substance known to man, at the minuscule concentration of 0.7 ppm, it is not toxic in any manner, “neuro-“, or otherwise.
Steven. We need to remind ourselves that in general we don’t change our minds on issues we closely identify with. This is the moral identity thesis which had much going for it. A particular view becomes sacrosanct because it becomes part of our psychological identity. We cannot avoid endorsing or because that causes cognitive dissonance. It amounts to self denial, something which sadly results in self destructive behaviour even suicide on some cases. This is part of the Neo Humean theory of psychological motivation.
The clinical research work on this was done by the brilliant Gus Blasi and his students in response to the moral development thesis of Piaget and Kohlberg. This is part of the thesis on group selection. Individuals don’t change, they fail or become irrelevant. The frequency norm shifts in the frequency distribution curve in response to changes in the environment. (pity Dawkins cannot understand this). Some plausible speculative generalisations can be drawn from this. Individuals with rather fragile or vulnerable self images tend to be more reluctant to submit their moral and intellectual commitments to dispassionate scrutiny. We all have theoretical views of the world. If we cling too tenaciously to misguided views on the grounds that it minimises cognitive dissonance, we are likely to be left “high and dry” or discarded by subsequent realities.
Yes, I have read your posts. I simply have no interest in your garbled opinions as to how you think statutes should apply to water fluoridation, or what you think you have been told by someone in the EPA, or elsewhere. Your opinion in this regard is irrelevant.
Once again…….yes the SDWA states that no national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance…….” This Act prohibits any NATIONAL regulation from requiring addition of fluoride. It does not prohibit local and state authorities from so doing. The EPA does not require the addition of fluoride. It simply regulates the safety of this substance by setting mandated maximum concentration levels. These safety standards cannot be exceeded by any state or local authority which does elect to add fluoride to its drinking water systems.
The EPA arrives at it safety standards through periodic, independent evaluation of its safety maximums (MCL) by the National Research Council. The current maximum safety level mandated by the EPA is 4.0 ppm. State and local authorities are entirely free to add fluoride to their water, as long as it does not exceed a concentration of 4.0 ppm. The latest NRC safety review, 2006, recommended lowering the mandated maximum down from 4.0 ppm. The EPA has not yet done so, presumably because fluoride levels in U.S. water is generally not high enough for this to be an issue. Nevertheless, the EPA is expected to lower this mandated level. The 2006 NRC Committee was charged also with evaluating the adequacy of the EPA secondary MCL. This level, 2.0 ppm, is not mandated, but the NRC was charged with evaluating it, nonetheless. The 2006 NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the 2.0 ppm secondary maximum level, thus deeming this level to be safely protective of the public. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, well under the EPA mandated and non-mandated maximum safety levels, one third the level deemed adequately protective of the safety of the public, by the 2096 NRC Committee in Fluoride.
Your quote of what you claim you were told by the EPA is erroneous. The SDWA does NOT prohibit the addition of any substance to drinking water water for health related purposes. It prohibits the FEDERAL MANDATING of addition of any substance for health related purposes. Do you understand the difference?
Thus, as most intelligent people can plainly see, while the EPA does not mandate the addition, or not, of fluoride to drinking water, it DOES regulate the safety level of this substance when added by local and state authorities. Fluoride is no more more a “protected pollutant” than is any other additive to drinking water.
Now, do you understand why your garbled opinions and misinterpretations of the law are of no interest to me, and are irrelevant to the issue?
Name these “numerous laws” that you claim fluoridation violates. Your
failure to do so will be taken as an admission by you that you understand your claim to be patently false…..which it is.
“You are not qualified to say that a large amount of fluoride, lead, and arsenic plus a small amounts of mercury, cadmium, and thallium are safe for all people to consume for life, with some people drinking ten times as much as others.”
Please specify what is your definition of “a large amount”. If that to which you refer is the minuscule few parts per million of fluoride in fluoridated water, and/or the minuscule few parts per BILLION of heavy metal contaminants that are found in fluoridated water, it is the EPA which has deemed these levels to be safe for human consumption. If you contend that the EPA is not “qualified” to make these assessments then you need to take your legal skills, whatever they may be, to court and attempt to make your case. I would caution you, however, that most judges will frown upon the total ignorance you obviously have of an issue you attempt to bring before them.
Tooth decay and gum disease are caused by bacteria and amoeba. There are better ways to kill bacteria and amoeba than by applying fluoride. Iodine in a water pic does a better job.
It is incorrect for you to say that EPA has established MCLs and MCLGs for contaminants and therefore that the EPA has “deemed these levels to be safe for human consumption.”
EPA MCLs and MCLGs are not authorization to add any amount of contaminants. They are requirements in the case of MCLs and goals in the case of MCLGs about removing contaminants which occur naturally or through pollution. Using MCLs and MCLGs as a green light to add trillions of atoms and molecules of fluoride ion, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium is a misuse of the MCLs and MCLGs.
The National Research Council made this clear in the 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride at page 13:
“In 1986, EPA established an MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] and MCL [maximum contaminant level] for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and an SMCL [special contaminant level] of 2 mg/L. These guidelines are restrictions on the total amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water. … EPA’s drinking-water guidelines are not recommendations about adding fluoride to drinking water to protect the public from dental caries. … Instead, EPA’s guidelines are maximum allowable concentrations in drinking water intended to prevent toxic or other adverse effects that could result from exposure to fluoride.”
So quit trying to defend adding any of these contaminants to drinking water by pointing to MCLs and MCLGs. They are not authorizations to “fill her up” to the MCL or MCLG limit.
The EPA or FDA could outlaw fluoridation. Only the FDA could authorize it because fluoridation meets the federal definition of a drug which is:
Fluoride mixed with water at 1 ppm or .7 ppm meets federal definitions of the terms “drug” and “medication.” The Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) defines a drug as an article
… intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animal. 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B)
Chlorine is there to kill bacteria. Fluoride is added to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. That’s the law. It has been ignored because the FDA has been to a large extent taken over by the industries it regulates, but it is still the law, and someday it will be enforced.
Look, here’s the thing….you’re playing with the big kids here. The people on this site have each forgotten more about this issue than that which you seem to think you know. We’ve repeatedly seen and repeatedly refuted all the lame, “fluoridealert.org” arguments you keep attempting to make, and are frankly tired of so doing. My advice to you is to either take your uninformed junk to an uninformed audience, or do whatever it takes to properly educate yourself on this issue. Otherwise you will just keep making a fool out of yourself and laying yourself wide open to fully justified ridicule.
Thing is…most science denial flavours seem to shout their crazy crazy from the roof tops with a sort of joyous pride, even to the extent of advertising their stupidity for all to see on Youtube…
What I don’t get, is when it comes to vaccination, they duck and dive, terrified of telling others what they believe in?
Anyway, it took me a while but I think I have discovered who our friendly Attorney really is…makes so much sense
The EPA does not not “authorize” the addition of fluoride to drinking water supplies. State and local authorities are the only entities allowed by law to do so. However, they are only allowed to do so if they do not exceed EPA mandated levels of safety. The EPA mandated level of safety, its primary MCL, for fluoride. Is 4.0 ppm. As long as fluoride does not exceed this concentration, state and local officials are entirely free to add it. This certainly violates no laws.
What I have stated is that the EPA bases its safety maximum levels on periodic, independent evaluation by the National Research Council, the most recent evaluation having been done in 2006. This NRC committee was charged with evaluating the EPA primary MCL of 4.0 ppm and its secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm to adequately protect the public against adverse effects. By virtue of its not recommending lowering the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride deemed 2.0 ppm adequately protective of the public against adverse effects. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level deemed safe by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride.
Your standard antifluoridationist nonsense about fluoride at 0.7 ppm being a “drug” or “medication” has been attempted in court repeatedly by antifluoridationists. It has been rejected each and every time. You are certainly free to waste time and money attempting it again, but I don’t much like your chances. The EPA controls mineral additives to water, which includes fluoride at the optimal level, not the FDA.
Now, I again ask you to cite the “numerous laws” you claim are being violated by water fluoridation. As yet, you have, as has been fully expected, failed to provide even one.
Do you seriously think anyone with a modicum of intelligence cares one iota what Dr. Kennedy, DDS, recommends? He’s the former President of that fringe group, the IAOMT, who put together the ridiculous FLUORIDATE! YouTube video, for gosh sakes.
What I don’t get, is when it comes to vaccination, they duck and dive, terrified of telling others what they believe in?
Is vaccination a bridge too far?
Surely not.
A casual observer can spot their endorsements of anti-vaccination on their anti-fluoride websites and in comments.
Yet poke them with a stick on the issue directly and they get all snakey.
Same thing happens with Intelligent Design Creationists.
One of my favourite questions for them was how old they think the Earth is?
Almost always sent them into a tizzy.
There an overlap in the people who reject the theory of Evolution and also reject the Earth being 4.5 billion years old.
That’s not a coincidence.
I suppose it’s a stretch to support the nutty idea of two wildly successful global scientific conspiracy theories happening ….at the same time in different, unrelated fields.
Rejecting the scientific consensus on one issue establishes a precedent.
The road taken to reject that particular consensus also lets you reject a different, unrelated scientific consensus.
Take a good hard look at the anti-fluoridationists.
See what they do.
Look at how they promote their ideas.
See also what they refuse to do too.
There’s nothing special about them. They are just one flavour out of many. They are only repeating well-established patterns already laid down by other groups with nothing to do with anti-fluoridation.
Your “scientific” debate has failed in its intentions and has succeed in only squandering people’s precious time and energy. In the end, I must consider that this has been your real intention despite your pronouncements to being constructive. It’s one thing to think you know what’s best for someone else, but it’s entirely something else to insist on it for everyone. Though you say you don’t; I know you do or you would not take such exception with those of us who oppose fluoridation as public policy.
It is not humanly possible to prove beyond a doubt that no living person or animal could be harmed, no matter how small the amount, by ingesting fluoridation chemicals. And, everyone intuitively knows this. Therefore, when you argue indefatigably for the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, one will invariably doubt your motives. Purposefully releasing fluorine ions into my water is a offense to me. This is an ethical question and not a scientific one. It’s not yours or any other person’s place to do. I see through your attempts to engage people with a scientific debate.
The debate has been a failure, you must admit. Neither yours nor Paul Connett’s efforts have brought any more general certainty to the question as evinced by the comments section. You have succeeded in creating another fight just exactly like so many others. What’s your real game?
It’s a trap you set for us and we fall for it over and over because we are authentic in our cause. For you, I can tell it is but ideology (or perhaps idolatry). Paul Connett debates people like you as a favor in an all-too-often vain attempt to give you a way out of your abstract convictions. You could thank him and gracefully concede that there indeed exists sufficient doubt for a reasonable person to oppose consuming fluoridation chemicals.
It should be enough for anyone with a conscience that his fellow refuses fluoridation. Even the millions of people who oppose it do not matter to you. We all must be misled, mistaken, paranoid or anti-science. In your frame of reference, it’s invalid for anyone to remain a skeptic. And you wonder why people are offended by you! As long as you’re engaged in a debate, you’re happy because you’re believe yourself to be the smarter, more scientific one. In truth, you’re wasting precious time and energy of principled people who merely wish to right a tremendous wrong.
“But show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves it dangerous”, you come again and we’re hooked once more. So much of what has gone on in your debate highlights many people’s incompetence with understanding and interpreting contemporary science. Congratulations! Are you satisfied now? Can’t you quit finally having demonstrated how amazingly scientific you are, content in knowing you really tried to bring us to the light?
What’s obvious, even to the unwashed, is that there is in fact a substantial debate going on by learned men and women and therefore doubt does reasonably persist. To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
It really is a fantasy to think that you can take the mantle of science upon yourself and convince us of how sorrowfully mistaken we are about fluoridation and its effects. It’s obscene when anyone gets hooked into your pretense of objectivity and engages in frivolous mind play, but at least they can be forgiven for their innocence. Their attempts to help you down from your perilous heights is honorable.
My request is that you leave us and our water alone. Seek platforms to get people to voluntarily increase their exposure to fluoride, if they choose, but through other means than our singular and priceless public water supply. If you really believe people are not getting enough fluoride down their throats, and your arguments, scientific or otherwise, are so convincing, then they need look no further than their bathroom cabinets where they are sure to find an abundant source of it in the form of toothpaste. I promise not to tattle on anyone who swallows some of it if you don’t.
No Clint! You leave us and our fluoridated water alone. We decided many years ago to optimise our F- level
in Dunedin for the sake of our kids and we ain’t gonna change it for crackpot born agains.
After all that rhetoric it boils down to a frustrated anti fluoride activist who like the sound of there own voice in print. Nothing new here. If you got your head out of the sand and looked at the mountains of research done by real people, and not some retired activist,who {has never had any real papers accepted from any recognized university or peer reviewed publication on the subject} is trying to rip the public and feather his own nest without any real stand alone proof,. And if his story is so watertight ,why does he need a legal team to bully any one who disagrees with his ideology
It is not humanly possible to prove beyond a doubt that no living person or animal could be harmed, no matter how small the amount, by ingesting fluoridation chemicals.
Burden of proof, dummy. It does not shift.
What’s obvious, even to the unwashed, is that there is in fact a substantial debate going on by learned men and women and therefore doubt does reasonably persist.
No there isn’t.
Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) on the moon landings is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) on evolution is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) on the dangers of smoking is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
More diversions there “Cedric” Perrott, it would be great if you could actually contribute something intelligent. It would be a first. Although you are right about one thing:
“Burden of proof, dummy. It does not shift.”
Exactly, burden of proof is on the one making the claim: “[ ingesting dilute industrial fluorosilicate waste is great for the health and wellbeing of everyone at an uncontrolled dose, and it should be foisted on them all whether they like it or not ]”. Water fluoridation is quackery by definition.
Further: “Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation”. Sure, here’s 2. The EPA, and Nobel laureates in chemistry.
Tell us about your qualifications then Cedric, and your affiliations with orthodoxy.
Hayden?
Over here.
(…points to self…)
There is no “Cedric” Perrot.
Stop listening to the voices in your head.
Focus.
“Burden of proof, dummy. It does not shift.”
Exactly, burden of proof is on the one making the claim: “[ ingesting…
Stop lying. It won’t help you. The words have not magically disappeared.
It is not humanly possible to prove beyond a doubt that no living person or animal could be harmed, no matter how small the amount, by ingesting fluoridation chemicals.
See?
Water fluoridation is quackery by definition.
Speak English.
“Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation”
Sure, here’s 2. The EPA, and Nobel laureates in chemistry.
Speak English.
1) The EPA does not reject the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
Google the EPA for yourself.
This is something that is checkable.
Lying will not help you.
2) “Nobel Laureates” are not a scientific community. The English language is not your friend.
Tell us about your qualifications then Cedric, and your affiliations with orthodoxy.
Ad hominem.
My qualifications are not important in the slightest.
Shame on you.
Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
Very.
Yet clearly, such a lie works on some people out there.
This is the internet.
The EPA and the CDC and others have websites.
Anybody, absolutely anybody, could just google those websites and find out for themselves what the position of any scientific community is on any subject.
It takes not time at all.
There’s no need to just trust some anonymous source and get your scientific information second-hand.
Yet….they fall for such lies again and again.
Primary sources of information are a mystery to them.
Yes, Bob, and on page 205 of the 2006 NRC Report, which you cite, is found:
“The high-fluoride area (Wamiao) had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area (Xinhuai) had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L).”
Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, the level within the range of the low-fluoride, control communities.
And on page 208 of the 2006 NRC report is found:
“The significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain. Most of the papers were brief reports and omitted important procedural details. For example, some studies used a modification of the Raven Progressive Matrix test but did not specify what the modifications were or describe how the test was administered. Most of the studies did not indicate whether the IQ tests were administered in a blinded manner. Some of the effects noted in the studies could have been due to stress induced by the testing conditions. Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. Despite this, the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence in populations that share similar languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and other commonalities.”
And, in regard to the quality of the Chinese studies in general. From the Harvard Review of 27 Chinese studies by Choi, grandjean, et al:
From page 4 Conclusion:
“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.”
——Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, Philippe Grandjean
Note: HIGH fluoride exposure. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, an extremely LOW concentration.
Page 9
“Six of the 34 studies identified were excluded due to missing information on the number of subjects or the mean and variance of the outcome (see Figure 1 for a study selection flow chart and Supplemental Material, Table S1 for additional information on studies that were excluded from the analysis). ”
Page 13
“Children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than those who lived in low exposure or control areas.”
Once again, note: HIGH fluoride exposure. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, an extremely LOW concentration, exactly in the range of the control groups in this study.
Page 13-14
“While most reports were fairly brief and complete information on covariates was not available, the results tended to support the potential for fluoride-mediated developmental neurotoxicity at relatively high levels of exposure in some studies.”
Incomplete information on covariates (controls). Relatively HIGH levels of fluoride. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, an extremely LOW concentration.
Page 15
“The present study cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, as the actual exposures of the individual children are not known. Misclassification of children in both high- and low-exposure groups may have occurred if the children were drinking water from other sources (e.g., at school or in the field).”
Page 15-16
“Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn. However, most deficiencies relate to the reporting, where key information was missing. The fact that some aspects of the study were not reported limits the extent to which the available reports allow a firm conclusion. Some methodological limitations were also noted. Most studies were cross-sectional, but this study design would seem appropriate in a stable population where water supplies and fluoride concentrations have remained unchanged for many years. The current water-fluoride level likely also reflects past developmental exposures. In regard to the outcomes, the inverse association persisted between studies using different intelligence tests, although most studies did not report age adjustment of the cognitive test scores.”
“The stand most health officials seem to be taking these days is that, until we get proof that fluoride is harmful, it will continue to be added to water. (This may seem ironic, given that companies who want to market new drugs must prove they are safe first whereas a drug already in our water will stay there until we prove it isn’t safe.)”
Pants – where are you quoting this from? Surely copypasta should be attributed.
It is rubbish of course. New drugs are not proved “safe” before they come on the market – and, in fact, nothing is “safe” in absolute terms. It is impossible to prove “safety” in absolute terms. What we can do is test a candidate drug for possible negative effects under the dosage and concentration it is meant to be used. The results determine if a drug is “safe” or not – and many drugs on the market are known to have negative effects for some people or some uses.
Fluoridated water has been used by communities for 70 years now so is well evalauted. There is absolutely no evidence of harm at this stage. If sometime in the future harm is found to occur of course it would be stopped.
Your honesty was helpful Ken, your not there as a Anglo, but If your not racist now you soon won’t exist. As known the word racism has been repeatedly used for many to get there own way. New Zealand has not one Anglo left and in the UK many live undercover, they can’t walk down streets without being targeted. Using fluoridation to scientifically edify Maori intelligence not saying some are not whist pushing to others isn’t helpful helpful. The days of pointing the finger to one and name calling are gone as others are not that simple whether they be Maori , Indian etc.Again New Zealand has not one Anglo left.
Don’t know if you’ll ad the other comment, but I’ll give you an example. James isn’t my brother yet him and his partner claim to be while trying to introduce Maori children and family members and people he knows, and some Indian whilst having his partner backlash if I push and some are very pushable violent etc. Now they comment the’ll phone the police crying racism and what government in the world actually stands up for white people, one pehaps, but number wise New Zealand’s white people are finished or will be in 150 years there abouts. There are many starving white people on the planet now, and NZ Maori have been very clever in show casing this for there own people when pehaps they wern’t to obtain government money. Fluoridation beneficial ,an opinion.
Seperate your pictures and clips that your affiliates have put up and certain Maori may be freed from being pushed to a certain individual. Your other topics similar setup possibly. All worked out before.
You and your affiliates, some linked to the security service are feeding your clips and pictures with the writtings to push certain Maori to an individual I won’t name or individuals. This has been happening for years in New Zealand with the internet, it occurs on other blog sites as well, and in different countries. Same is happening to Part “Italians” possibly from NZ or Italty or elsewhere. Fluoridation a side issue to the objective.
7:44
Replied (confirmed pushing Maori)
9:44
———————————————————————————————–
Power of the internet with multipule postings to push or pull people one way or the other or towards or against another. Two hundred working at NZSIS? thats alot of pressure, add supporters…And thats what alot of these postings are about.
Ten squeeze a sheeps belly, and a good chance blood comes out, pehaps water from its teeth (fluoridated or not), but were not talking about a sheep or blood here are we Ken from the NZSIS, and with the SS connected and combined from country to country across many regions and squeezing to obtain……under “guise” postings weather they be fluoride, or other guised postings you could almost control and racist a white man or pehaps…. gees thats a picture of Clint Griess? reminds me of some blokes seen in the UK, throw in a name every so often within the postings to achieve…well back to the sheep.
I had an Indian sit close to me on a train recently, or beacuse you say hello to someone on the street people may think that you accept them as a close friend with the visual power of the internet etc. Pushing Maori , Indians or any other race including white people you don’t know, No not for me Ken.
Question, what is the correct dosage for fluoride?
I mean, everyone has different dosages when it’s placed in the public water system, because we’re always drinking different and varied amounts, because people have different lifestyles, and drink more water than others.
For example, someone like myself, who plays a lot of cricket in the hot Australian summer, and drinks copious amounts of water will be getting more fluoride, than say my grandmother who sips a cup of tea every morning.
Am I overdosing, or is my grandmother underdosing?
Peter, new commenters here always have to be approved – you are not being censored.
Regarding your comments od “dosage’ – the concept is just not relevant to nutrient intake. We talk of dose when referring to drugs but not when referring to nutrients. We don’t talk of dosage when discussing calcium, selenium, magnesium intake – do we.
What we refer to is recommended intake – and that has a wide range. We discuss the possibilities of too low an intake or too high an intake but we don’t aim for a narrow precise intake.
Neither you or you grandmother are “overdosing” on F if you are living in an area where community water fluoridation is used.
Im posting again, because I’m not sure why my rebuttal didn’t show up on this thread.
Firstly, seeing as though you like to indulge in semantics, I didn’t accuse you of “censoring,” you were just failing to publish my comments, as we have found, for obviously reasons.
I did have a little laugh, at your attempted non-sequitur over this silly argument about semantics.
I spend time with my grandmother, so the word dosage is her terminology, not mine. However, whether it’s dosage or recommended intake, you know what I mean.
“…the concept is just not relevant to nutrient intake.”
Fluoride, is not a nutrient, it’s a chemical.
Let’s both of us refer to fluoride as a chemical, so there’s no hang up about semantics.
“Neither you or you grandmother are “overdosing”…
It seems you didn’t bother to read my post in its entirety, my concern is, was I getting too much, and my grandmother getting too little, in regards to the real-life example I gave you?
“I think this concept was discussed…”
You think?
Well that was wrong, because that link you provided was wholly inadequate.
It’s obvious to all objective observers, that this chemical seems to be totally arbitrary and ad hoc when it comes to intake… obviously, it’s a secondary consideration, because we drink water primarily for hydration.
We don’t see arbitrary intakes of say pharmaceutical drugs, when our doctors prescribe them for us.
So why isn’t this question addressed by the pro-fluoride crowd?
You say “Im posting again, because I’m not sure why my rebuttal didn’t show up on this thread.” I do not know what you mean. I saw your comment so it obviously shows up. What do you mean by “thread” – you are commenting on a page – not a post?
Of course, fluoride is a chemical – all nutrients are chemicals.
You say the link I provided “was wholly inadequate” – please describe in which way it was inadequate. Did you actually read the document – it’s quite long.
How can you justify your statement that fluoride “seems to be totally arbitrary and ad hoc when it comes to intake?” Do you say the same about Iodine or Selenium where the same situation applies – we consider intake not “dosage.” We don’t treat these nutrients as “pharmaceutical drugs, when our doctors prescribe them for us.”
I don’t know who you think “the pro-fluoride crowd” is but this sort of issue has been discussed here several times. And as a trained research scientist, I am an objective observer. It’s not an important aspect though. If you are not living in an area of endemic fluorosis and do not drink a lot of black tea or consume toothpaste, and you are living in a region where CWF is used neither you or your grandma are getting too much or too little F. Health authorities keep abreast of nutrient intakes and ongoing research and they would modify recommended procedures if that was the case.
My word, your desire for obfuscation by way of semantics is extraordinary.
Blog, page, thread and post, excetera excetera is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Your avoidance at answering a simple question is noted.
I had trouble posting my rebuttal, it took three attempts, that’s what I was referring to.
Yes, your link was wholly inadequate, because it’s not specific regarding my point, and that is, what is the daily recommended intake of fluoride… ingested fluoride via water consumption, not from other sources?
I doubt your claims of being a scientist, and I certainly doubt your claims of objectivity, because needless to say, that is a conflict of interest.
Judging oneself about ones objectivity is obviously problematic.
“Do you say the same about Iodine or Selenium where the same situation applies…”
Huh?
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you saying you can take as much, or as little iodine and selenium as you choose?
And needless to say, they are nutrients, where as fluoride is a chemical.
Quite frankly, this quote from that broader paragraph, is just a word salad of conflating contexts, and a total misrepresentation of what I said earlier.
“If you are not living in an area of endemic fluorosis and do not drink a lot of black tea or consume toothpaste, and you are living in a region where CWF is used neither you or your grandma are getting too much or too little F.”
That is a bizarre and ambiguous statement, firstly, what “area” do you consider to have endemic fluorosis?
As for the rest of that comment, can you substantiate it?
Put simply, and getting back to my main point, what is the recommended daily intake of fluoride through water consumption?
And this time, can you reply succinctly and directly?
Your attempts at disingenuous and specious claptrap is laughable.
Peter, there is a reason for moderation on this blog – it helps to filter out extreme nutters and is used by most blogs.
I welcomed you here by approving your comments so that they could be discussed. If you have a different contrarian agenda and simply indulge in name-calling I can easily remove approval. Such tactics really are of no help in reaching an understanding.
But to answer your specific points.
1: Your “doubts” are meaningless regarding my professional background. That is simply a matter of record available to anyone. Try checking out my publications on Google scholar, or look through my Researchgate collection.
2: No I am not “saying you can take as much, or as little iodine and selenium as you choose” – I thought that was clear. Like all nutrients, there are problems when the intake of chemicals like this is either too low or too high. Like fluoride, there are parts of China where selenium intake is too high leading to health problems and other parts where it is too low leading to health problems. In New Zealand, Selenium intake can be low because our soils are naturally deficient – but intake is helped by the import of wheat and other foods.
But we don’t talk of “dosage” when we discuss chemicals/nutrients like Selenium, Iodine or Fluoride – we talk of an acceptable range of intake. Minimum and maximum uptake levels. We do this with fluoride. For example, because in most cases fluoride in drinking water is the major source of F-intake the WHO defines a recommended drinking water fluoride concentration range of 0.5 – 1.5 mg/L. The helps overcome dental problems at deficient levels while avoiding dental and skeletal fluorosis problems and excessive intake levels. The WHO considers nutrient intake – not dosage in such cases. If you want the recommended total dietary intake levels I recommend you investigate the official health and scientific sources which discuss nutrient intake recommendations for specific information which usually depends on age and weight.
3: I repeat, Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals and nutrients. There is a serious problem with your comprehension if you do not understand that all nutrients, in fact, all substances, are chemicals. Surely that is a simple fact most people understand (although advertisers wish to confuse that understanding).
4: Endemic fluorosis areas are defined by the health symptoms shown by residents due to excessive fluoride intake. It is a big problem worldwide and there is a lot of attention paid to defluorination of drinking water or finding alternative sources for human consumption. There are no endemic fluorosis areas in New Zealand – the problem here is that most of New Zealand is naturally deficient in fluoride.
Finally, I welcome good-faith discussion on these scientific issues – but there is no place for the personal attack of the sort you have been making.
This is fascinating, and at the same time highly amusing!
I accuse you of obfuscation, disingenuous prolix and other off topic tangents, wrapped up in your semantics, and you prove me correct…
Now we can add the term hypocrisy.
“There is a serious problem with your comprehension…”
“Finally, I welcome good-faith discussion on these scientific issues – but there is no place for the personal attack of the sort you have been making.”
Let’s isolate this paragraph…
“I repeat, Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals and nutrients. There is a serious problem with your comprehension if you do not understand that all nutrients, in fact, all substances, are chemicals. Surely that is a simple fact most people understand (although advertisers wish to confuse that understanding).”
And I repeat, your games of semantics will not be tolerated in a rational debate.
I, rightly, separate Iodine and Selenium, because if you study evolutionary biology, those two nutrients have been important to our biological makeup… Fluoride?
Not so much.
That’s why I refer to it as a chemical, as opposed to a nutrient.
And then laughingly, you claim that advertisers try to confuse the understanding of nutrients and chemicals.
And ditto for the rest of your post, and out of fear of repeating myself, it’s irrelevant and off-topic prolix.
You wanting to steer this debate off-topic around Iodine and Selenium is evidence of that. You failed to answer a simple question, and stick specifically to the topic, which is the correct intake of fluoride.
The closest you got to answering my question was this…
“…WHO defines a recommended drinking water fluoride concentration range of 0.5 – 1.5 mg/L…”
Which brings me back to my original point, if I’m drinking up to 3 to 4 L of water per day in a hot Australian Summer playing cricket and other sports, am I getting too much fluoride?
Lastly, ResearchGate is considered the “Facebook” for anyone interested in science.
Anybody with an interest in science can get published on ResearchGate.
Peter, I am afraid you are not being genuine. Researchgate is, of course, a repository for one’s documents. I have placed my published papers there, as well as some documents in progress. Or documents like the Connett/Perrott Fluoride Debate which was, of course, not published in the normal sense but is still very useful. It gets a lot of downloads. I have published many papers in the normal scientific journals (some of them even on fluoride) and you can easily locate them (trying looking for the citations on Researchgate or do a simple search).
Please don’t try to pursue this attempt to denigrate me and my scientific career. That will only show your lack of good faith and will lead to my placing you back into moderation.
There is nothing laughable about the way advertiser use the term “chemical.” Ever looked at a packet of sea salt in the supermarket and see it claimed to be “chemical-free?”
So you continue your lack of comprehension – withdrawing the status of “chemical” from Iodine and Selenium because they involved in biochemical reactions. Of course, at this stage fluoride is not seen as essential to biochemical transformations but it is a normal and essential component of bioapatites – including bones and teeth. The fact remains that Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals – it is ignorant to claim otherwise. And they all play a role in the body.
As for your worry that you may be getting too much fluoride? Do you have any symptoms of skeletal fluorosis? (Dental fluorosis is not a problem for adults). If not, then you have the answer and you have absolutely no need to bother others with silly questions.
All I can say, is you are denigrating yourself, with your laughable and ridiculous word games, all designed to avoid the elephant in the room, and that is, your failure, along with the pro fluoride people to answer this problematic question.
And again, your ability to lump all chemicals together, is just quite laughable, where you cannot distinguish between good, bad and indifferent chemicals.
So according to you, light, whether it comes from the sun or my torch is the same.
Seeing as though, you so spectacularly failed to answer this simple question, perhaps you can read these other criticisms of fluoride, and try to rebut them. Instead of posting multiple links, I found them all in the one page.
“The fact remains that Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals… they all play a role in the body.”
Again, appalling nonsense from someone who purports to be a scientist.
Show me, where has fluoride, like Selenium and Iodine, helped create the organisms we are today, via evolutionary biology?
Put simply, what role has fluoride played in our development?
Peter, I am putting you back into moderation. This gives me a chance to check your comments before they are published. I will not allow any more comments where you personally attack me and use puerile claims that I “purport” to be a scientist. (I do not purport anything – that is simply a fact).
My serious comments dealing with your misunderstanding of chemistry are not “laughable and ridiculous word games.”
You seem completely unaware that I am, familiar with Connett’s 50 reasons – hell, this debate was specifically about them. I have countered his claims in the article which this page is dedicated to (you didn’t bother reading it did you?) and there are a large number of posts where I deal specifically with these claims and others – and with the research.
So, Peter, you are welcome to make serious and respectful comments here or on the main part of my blog where most commenters appear. But I will not allow any more personal attacks from you.
I already have that paper, Peter. Its citation is:
Clemmesen, J. (1983). The alleged association between artificial fluoridation of water supplies and cancer: A review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 61(5), 871–883.
I was just looking at the fluoride therapy once tooth decay has occurred and one wished to arrest it by fluoridation using commercially available fluoride toothpaste: applying a blob of tooth paste to the affected teeth or all teeth and leaving it there for say 30 minutes twice a day. To the anti-fluoridation proponents, what dangers are you aware of, if any, in such a practice.
You will have to ask a dentist – but I have certainly heard of this and use of other fluoride treatments like silver fluoride to arrest decay and even avert demineralisation. my own dentist has recommended this to me rather than drilling and reconstruction.
Open Parachute 
Pingback: The fluoride debate – introduction | Open Parachute
I would like Mr Connett to show me an independent, peer reviewed paper that states fluoride is dangerous to humans in the 0.7PPM range
LikeLike
Pingback: Fluoride debate Part 1: Connett | Open Parachute
Pingback: Fluoride debate Part 1: Perrott | Open Parachute
This is an outstanding method by which to debate this issue. I congratulate Ken for working it out. Political debates are as much for the public to assess the candidates, as they are for the information they provide. Thus, live debates are appropriate. However, in discussions of a scientific issue, assessment of the debaters, themselves, is not only unnecessary, but an undesirable distraction from the issue at hand. Any arguments that can be made live can also be made in written form which can then be carefully assessed for validity, and to which a proper response can be formulated. I strongly urge Paul to take this approach from now on when he issues challenges for debate of water fluoridation. The public will be much better served in this manner.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
The standard lay person argument I would offer here is that there are few, if any studies of fluorides’ effects on people’s health at this level.Very few populations that are fluoridated get such alow level. That is because 0.7ppml is the new, lowest level of fluoridation which Fianna Fail brought into Ireland in 2007 after the US NRC advised fluoridation was too risky to continue at the higher level of 1ppm
LikeLike
But that should not make any difference .As you say it has been around for at least 6 years, and if anything it should strengthen the pro fluoride argument as the dosage is lower, But this was manly bought about because of dental fluorosis. A cosmetic discoloration of the teeth
LikeLike
Chris dental fluorosis a cosmetic discolouration …really perhap a little research is required …more like 1st symptom of F toxicity…ie tooooooo much F from all dietary sources including water
LikeLike
Talking about the need for research Ian – could you provide some citations, links, etc., to research supporting your claim that the questionable and mild fluorosis associated with fluoridation is a first symptom of F toxicity?
Seriously, that is an extremely important claim to make so should be backed up.
>
LikeLike
Ian has had an opinion.
LikeLike
Ian, in the absence of valid evidence of a problem with fluoride toxicity related to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, it is invalid to demand proof that there is not. Such demands for proof of a negative are an endless process, as antifluoridationists will eternally make unsubstantiated claims then demand proof that they are not valid. A guess that dental fluorosis may be a sign of another problem is not valid evidence of anything.
There is no valid proof of any adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0,7 ppm.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
May not be 1st symptom(if not the first what is that see is the first external symptom in humans) but definitely a sign of chronic F exposure, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21701193, from all sources …acute exposure eg eating a tube of tooth paste or a quantity of F based pesticide would cause more serve symptoms or even kill I thought this type of toxicity was so well known that references would not be necessary especially given that Ken,& Steven appear to be experts in this field of F chemistry & toxicity of F……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
http://www.diagnose-me.com/symptoms-of/fluoride-toxicity.html
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Recognition+and+Management+of+Fluoride+Toxicity
Steve you when you say there is no valid proof of any adverse of water fluoridated at 0.7ppm but that’s pro-fluoridation argument, which do I agree with that statement, but scientifically just because there is no valid proof doesn’t prove that its safe, just because symptoms in humans are not apparent doesn’t mean a life time of total F ingestion is safe or whether there are or arenot adverse effects.
LikeLike
Ian. Failure to prove the non existence of something is not proof of its existence.
If you want to go through life terrified of things for which there is no evidence, more fool you.
LikeLike
Ian, you are still purposely confusing severe dental fluorosis which probably does indicate toxic intake levels of F, with questionable of very mild fluorosis which may be considered perfectly normal, cosmetic only and not evidence of toxic levels.
Severe fluorosis occurs where natural F levels are high or there is unusual high intake, such as by continuous eating of toothpaste.
You have not produced any evidence to support your claim that the questionable/mild dental fluorosis (that anti-fluoride people just label fluorosis) is at all an indication of toxic levels or internal poisoning.
LikeLike
Ian
Ken should certainly be considered an expert in Chemistry and Fluoride, but not I. I am not an expert in either, simply a healthcare professional who has done due diligence in seeking accurate information from reliable sources.
The study you reference in your first sentence makes no mention of concentration levels of fluoride. Yes, dental fluorosis can certainly occur with overexposure to fluoride during tooth forming years. However, the only dental fluorosis which may occur attributable to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm is mild to very mild. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which is generally only observable under close examination by a dental professional. It has no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al, have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more resistant to decay, this effect is not even considered to be undesirable by many, much less adverse.
— The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
What you state in your last paragraph is your desire to prove a negative, i.e. “there could possibly be a problem, therefore you must prove there is not one”. This is invalid science, and would be an endless process. In order to require proof that there is not a problem, there must first be valid evidence that a problem exists. There is none in regard to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity)
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity). By extension, the word may be metaphorically used to describe toxic effects on larger and more complex groups, such as the family unit or society at large.
Teeth[edit]
The only generally accepted adverse effect of fluoride at levels used for water fluoridation is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children’s teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and usually only an aesthetic concern. Compared to unfluoridated water, fluoridation to 1 mg/L is estimated to cause fluorosis in one of every 6 people (range 4–21), and to cause fluorosis of aesthetic concern in one of every 22 people (range 13.6–∞). Here, “aesthetic concern” is a term used in a standardized scale based on what adolescents would find unacceptable, as measured by a 1996 study of British 14-year-olds.[14]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
If you don’t agree I’m sure you can summit alteration to wikipedia
Steve in this debate you have canned anti fluoride site but you then you use pro-fluoride sites (The Journal of the American Dental Association.)
Ken
since you brought it up could tell us refer me to a paper outlining how much dental fluorsis represents toxicity of F( ie the level of fluorsis which represents start of toxicity) & what level of fluoride would need to be consumed or absorbed
Steve since your in the dental field you possibly could help in providing a definition which would clearly show when cosmetic becomes toxic…because I certainly at the moment from the above definition of toxicity cant discern a difference
LikeLike
Ian
Antifluoridationist websites are rife with out-of-context information, misinterpretation of study results, half-truths, and misinformation. They are managed and maintained by persons who are unqualified to understand science or healthcare. If you are equating these sites with the Journal of the American Dental Association, in discussion of a dental/healthcare issue, then I really don’t need to comment any further on that. The absolute absurdity speaks for itself.
It is of no concern to me, whatsoever, what Wikipedia has to say about dental fluorosis. I obtain my scientific information from far more authoritative sources.
If this will help your confusion, the 2006 NRC Committee which generated the report that antifluoridationists so frequently misuse, did not consider mild dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect. I’ve already explained this effect to you previously.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
“when you say there is no valid proof of any vampires, but scientifically just because there is no valid proof doesn’t prove that there’s no vampires, just because vampires symptoms in humans are not apparent doesn’t mean blah, blah, blah…”
Anti-flurodiationists are not the sharpest tools in the box. It’s one painfully dumb argument after another.
LikeLike
……after another, after another, after another, until they recycle and start all over again.
I can recite them in my sleep…….
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Yep “name calling” really I thought we were adults I thought as a dentist Steve you would be concerned (http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/1302/m482656_v1_policy%20statement%206.5.1%20code%20of%20ethics%20for%20dentists.pdf) about what the exposure level of F which causes your patients to have dental fluorsis..
.but thank you & Cedric for your pro fluoride comments
All I was asking is for you, your dental Association of toxicologists, or any toxicologist, or any person regardless of qualification who has read a paper showing the level of total F intake which causes any dental fluorsis please supply the link
History F was introduced 1st introduced as additive to water around 1950
If its F is so good at 1 ppm why the sudden reduction in recent years(2011 I believe) to 0.7 ppm WOW we have a safety margin for toxicity of 0.3 ppm thats simply amazing protection for our children and it only took 50-60 years for the pro F people to recognize this
LikeLike
Ian, I imagine you have a lot invested in being able to label 0.7ppm in water fluoride as toxic.
Then you can run around mentioning it at every opportunity.
“toxic waste” this – “toxic levels of fluoride” that.
Knowing of course, that most people associate the term toxic with serious health damaging or life threatening cases of poisoning.
It becomes misleading. Deliberately so.
There is a term for it. It’s called being disingenuous.
Minor cosmetic discolouration with an associated and positive increase in dental health doesn’t fit the bill.
LikeLike
Recent studies and the increasing use of other forms of fluoride application have brought this change on.Usually dental fluorosis is a mild condition and as per normal the anti groups jump on it as a major condition to leach some mileage out of it to promote their fantasy. In saying that, is is not a copout, the water borne fluoride is still the best way to have a continuous supply of fluoride on the teeth, The so called high fluoride hit from toothpaste is not as regulated as the water borne method, and requires more input from the recipient in the form of remembering to brush your teeth twice a day.as well as not using too much, as this form of treatment can be 100 times higher than water borne fluoride. There are some households that dont even have a toothbrush each. Tooth paste is not top of the shopping list and these people are the most likely to have tooth decay due to the use of cheap soft drinks
LikeLike
Ian, I have no idea as to what “name calling” you refer, and really don’t care. What I post are facts. I also have no idea as to your point with the link to ADA ethics, and certainly couldn’t care less about that either. Antifluoridationists have so little regard for truth and ethics that is always amusing to me when one attempts to make such ridiculous allegations.
As far your question in regard to 0.7 ppm, the current recommended optimal level of fluoride as established by the US Department of Health and Human
Services is a range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm, the optimal level being that concentration at which will occur maximum dental decay prevention with no adverse effects. In 2011, in recognition of increased exposure to fluoride from dental products and other sources, since the optimal range was initially established, the US CDC recommended that the optimal range be eliminated, replaced with the optimal level simply being the low end of that range, which is 0.7 ppm. The US DHHS has not yet formally adopted that recommendation, but it is expected to do so.
This is an example of regulatory bodies doing their job of oversight exactly as they should do, and demonstrates that proper oversight is in place. It is not a negative as antifluoridationists, very predictably, attempt to portray it to be.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Knowing of course, that most people associate the term toxic with serious health damaging or life threatening cases of poisoning.
It’s funny how the English language keeps changing with these people.
Toxic used to mean, well, toxic.
Enormous used to be connected with bigness somehow.
Attacking someone etc.
These words in the hands of anti-fluoridationists are (dare I say it?)….diluted.
LikeLike
Cedric, Chris & Richard …all substances are toxic it is the amount….time relationship ….drinking too much water will kill if it consumed in too short a time frame
TOXICITY RATING FOR HUMANS (70 KG BODY WEIGHT)
Rating/Class Dose
SOURCE: Gosselin, et al. (1984). Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkens.
6. Super toxic 15 g/kg Water
LikeLike
Tocity rating was from http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Te-Va/Toxicity.html
LikeLike
Ian
Very good! So you DO actually understand that even water is toxic in improper amounts. In the correct concentration it is entirely safe to consume. Same with fluoride….toxic at improper levels, entirely safe at 0.7 ppm.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Yes Steve I understand a good deal of things….but what I don’t understand,and haven’t been able to find is the point which F becomes a toxin in humans?…ie what is the amount, from all sources, in my diet which causes toxicity
Food Composition tables do not give F amount in a particular foodstuff
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/nutrientables/pages/default.aspx
Hey someone asked about reference for sensitivity of F…found one for Iodine (would expect similar sensitivities from F) which has similar chemical properties http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/nutrition/iodinesensitive/pages/default.aspx
LikeLike
Ian
The Institute of Medicine has established an upper limit of daily fluoride intake before adverse effects may occur, long or short term, to be 10 mg. The CDC estimates that 75% of daily fluoride intake to be from the water. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (mg/liter=ppm). Using these figures, it is easy to determine your total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.
The average daily water consumption by adults is 2-3 liters. Even if one drinks an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day, the total fluoride intake is 5.6 mg, only slightly more than half the daily upper limit.
Click to access ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Cedric, Chris & Richard …all substances are toxic it is the amount….time relationship ….drinking too much water will kill if it consumed in too short a time frame….
Then bitching about water fluoridation being “toxic” is a stupid thing to do.
You’d have to work really, really hard to get a toxic level of fluoride from drinking water, in much the same way as you’d have work at drinking a toxic level of water.
…?…ie what is the amount, from all sources, in my diet which causes toxicity….
Seriously?
This was beyond your ability to find out?
Or did you think that science didn’t already know about this or something?
The mind boggles.
Google is not your friend.
LikeLike
These corrosive hazardous waste pollutants & co-contaminants aka ‘water fluoridation’ is not only in the water supplies it’s is of course, through our food chain and environment.
Corporate `sponsorship` of our Dental Schools in Australian Universities etc., is (allegedly) like leaving the wolves to mind the lambs. Many (allegedly) say that this is a most serious conflicts of interests and complete loss of ethics and integrity.
The informed and independently researched/unbiased members of the population are sick of the fact that for decades the Fluoridation Lobby remain so politically powerful and media powerful – and that’s the only way these dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc., (known as water fluoridation chemicals) (also added is aluminium sulphate) continues to be disposed of into our drinking water supplies and hence also contaminating our food chain – the truth never gets to the people by way of headlines in a totally controlled corporate mainstream media – this is appalling.
Also many of the population are still unaware because authorities lie and say the ‘fluoride’ is natural – this is absolutely deceptive and a cover-up.
This is what they are consuming in their water, of course it’s all through the food chain, and they bath their babies, kids, themselves and their pets in these hazardous waste pollutants – we the population, pets and environment polluted with this hazardous waste known as water fluoridation.
All thinking people must ask, who in their right minds would force an entire population to consume this in everything we eat, drink and bathe in, also ask why would Dentists and doctors fight to the death to enforce this pollutant on us all & our environment if as they say it is effective at reducing dental decay by between 30 & 60% thus reducing their income. What BS ! They say it is safe and effective and Australia wide and USA all in dental crisis after decades of the poison fluoridation commencing firstly in Australia 1953 and USA in 1945.
“Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2013, Article ID 439490, 13 pages, 2013. Richard Sauerheber, doi:10.1155/2013/439490. Available online at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
Fluoridation = What you are drinking, bathing in and it’s all through the food chain and environment :-
FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS
http://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/
Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses – Freedom of Information – South Australia Water Corp. Raw fluoridation chemical analyses of South Australia’s drinking water, listed below. This data has been scanned from original documents provided to Sapphire Eyes Productions by Dr. Andrew Harms and Ann Bressington. These documents show the toxic, heavy metal contaminants contained in the chemicals used to fluoridate your drinking water. These include lead, arsenic, mercury, uranium, and more. ‘FIRE WATER’ FILM SOURCE: http://tiny.cc/9oj4g
Source: http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/ Watch: http://www.firewaterfilm.com
The Chemistry of Water Fluoridation – What is Water Fluoridation? http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-chemistry-of-water-fluoridation.pdf
Hydrofluoric Acid – Acutely toxic chemical
Click to access Hydrofluoric_Acid_Safety_Handout.pdf
Explaining the truth about “water fluoridation” and the phosphate mining industry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ15m-D_n8&feature=share
Fluosilicic Acid. TOXNET profile from Hazardous Substances Data Base http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fluosilicic.acid.toxnet.hsd.htm
Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses
http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/foi-water-analysesfor-sa-2010.html
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid Origins http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/
Fluoride Class Action http://fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it
REPORT: 100% fluoridated Kentucky, USA – Rampant Dental Decay & chronic disease epidemic – DDB http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rampant-dental-decay-chronic-disease-epidemic-in-100-fluoridated-kentucky-usa-13-aug-2013-ddb.pdf
Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?
Click to access can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf
Fluoridegate – The Film http://www.fluoridegate.org/ USA EPA shredded evidence of harm and fired Chief Scientist/Toxicologist in an attempt to silence him. Also here > http://youtu.be/zpw5fGt4UvI
Dr David Kennedy DDS speaking about how the EPA was ordered to lie about the safety of water fluoridation because it was/is bought and sold by industry: Water Fluoridation Regulations Are Based on Lies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrfORyiET3o
To quote Dr. Phillip R.N. Sutton, Formerly Academic Associate and Senior Research Fellow, Department Oral Medicine and Surgery, Dental School, University of Melbourne, Author of The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation (1996):
“We are all affected by this potentially dangerous fraud: The convincing of Governments and people generally that it is ethical, safe and beneficial to medicate, compulsorily, many millions of people throughout their lives with small but uncontrollable doses of a cumulative and very toxic substance because of the notion that it reduces the prevalence of dental decay. All this, although neither its safety nor any scientifically-proved reduction in the number of decayed teeth has been demonstrated.”
~~
‘Fluoridation has not been shown to be safe and effective’
Cities in Canada are also abandoning the practice. The most recent are cities like Quebec City, Waterloo, Calgary and Windsor. Those cities finally decided to stop wasting their money on toxic waste (fluoridation chemicals) that not only are no longer effective to prevent decay but are likely harmful to humans and the environment.
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS
Professor Emeritus and former Head, Preventive Dentistry
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
http://www.madhunt.com/hardy-limebeck-column-20130930.html
~~
Dr. Robert Gammal BDS
To Fluoridate or Not
an ethical and health issue which affects everyone’s health
A Submission to Councils, Health Departments and People
October, 2013
Click to access To%20Fluoridate%20or%20Not%207.pdf
~~~~
Website: http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/fia-report-archives/
Website: http://afamildura.wordpress.com/basics/
LikeLike
Diane, I will allow your comment through this time – partly as an example of the very thing we do not want – a general screed unrelated to the article with copypasta and links to unreliable sources.
However, this post is just a list of the debate articles.
Could you please ensure future comments do relate to the article you are commenting under and hold back on the copypasta and irrelevant links?
LikeLike
Cedric Katesby
thanks for the reference to dr google please supply with a link showing exactly at what level toxicity commences
I can find recommended “safe ” levels(thanks Steve) based on a 50+ year trail but no study showing when F actually damages humans
Cosmetic fluorsis is obviously not toxic in your opinion (and that of most of the pro camp) but there is no clearly defined level where this happens…just a proposed safe level
I guess you could say a single scratch on your car is only cosmetic…but I would suggest it is damaged…..
LikeLike
<i.please supply with a link showing exactly at what level toxicity commences
Don’t be so thick. Any individual’s reaction to any chemical will vary with a variety of parameters, age, weight, etc and type of reaction under observation.
LikeLike
thanks Richard Christie what I had in mind was mg /kg & tests on sufficient sample populations where F intake is varied and mg amount is known exactly…..the diet should preferable be devoid of other halogens (chlorine & bromide in particular Iodine is required for life) as possible to avoid possible synergistic effects
LikeLike
Diane
In order understand how one person could so garble things in one comment, as you have done, one only needs to look at the sources you cite……..a little, biased antifluoridationist website, “fluorideinformationaustralia” which is full of the same misinformation as all other little biased antifluoridationist websites, and an antifluoridationist blog, “afamildura” maintained by an antifluoridationist who has very little idea of what he’s talking about.
Instead of simply regurgitating nonsense from these sites, has it ever occurred to you to seek accurate information on water fluoridation, which is readily available to you and everyone else, from reliable, respected, and primary sources?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian
A “single scratch on my car” is readily, and inexpensively removed if it bothers me. However, it is probably not noticeable except upon close examination, and will not have been caused by a process that makes my entire car more scratch resistant.
As far as your desire for threshold of fluoride toxicity, let’s focus on water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, okay? Regardless of the line you seek for toxicity, fluoridated water falls far below it. The IOM daily upper limit of total fluoride intake from all sources before adverse effects may occur, is 10 mg. Before this level is reached, water toxicity would be your problem, not fluoride. Where your concern for the exact line of chlorine toxicity?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
These corrosive hazardous waste pollutants & blah, blah, blah…
(…followed by 22 links….)
Where do people like Diane come from?
On what planet is it considered a good idea to post a screed with 22 links?
That’s insane.
There’s no polite way of putting it.
It’s batshit krazy.
It’s not like she’s the only one out there on the internet doing this, either.
(…shudder…)
LikeLike
Ian, why don’t you design the study you wish to occur in which fluoride intake is “known exactly”. Be sure and take into account those who live in non fluoridated areas but work or school in fluoridated areas, and vice versa. Probably will need them to take water samples from every water fountain, bathroom faucet, and restaurant from which they ingest food and water, and have them analyzed for fluoride content. Probably will need them to take samples of Grandma’s food and water, and/or that from wherever else in the world they may visit for work, pleasure, or other reasons. You’ll also want them to write down the exact fluoride content of each morsel of food they eat at home, and from every drink of beverage they consume, carefully measuring total content divided by exact amount consumed. Probably will require a precise weight scale…….
Or, you can realize, as did Levy in his Iowa study, that is impossible to measure exactly the total fluoride intake from all sources, given the enormous number of uncontrollable variables, and instead be satisfied with the knowledge that total daily fluoride intake from all sources falls far short of established upper limits before adverse effects will occur.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ok, looking at one of Diane’s “references”, “fluorideinformationaustralia”, which would be far more accurately “fluoridemisinformationaustralia”, it is stated
“It is simply assumed by high school science teachers and supporters of fluoridation that all fluoride compounds dissociate entirely into fluoride ions, and harmless hydration compounds of silicon. Pure fluoride solutions do behave relatively predictably, both over the permissible pH range of municipal water supplies and in the extremely acidic environment of the human stomach. However, fluorosilicates dissociate in highly complex fashion in water, with an amazing range of complex derivatives forming at different pH values, none of whose toxicological properties has been adequately investigated. In other words, we don’t really know much about their effects on our health.”
So, it appears that Dr. William F. Finney is a high school science teacher. His paper in which it is concluded that no HFA intermediates are observable after hydrolysis, must just be a semester term paper or something.
“The dissociation of hexafluorosilicate has been reinvestigated due to recent suggestions that fluorosilicate intermediates may be present in appreciable concentrations in drinking water. 19F NMR spectroscopy has been used to search for intermediates in the hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicate. No intermediates were observable at 10(-5) M concentrations under excess fluoride forcing conditions over the pH range of 3.5-5.”
—–Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7.
Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement.
Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW.
Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, 930 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1055, USA.
And It appears that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) …..must just be “supporters of fluoridation”, because they state:
“Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation. These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance to be evaluated is the fluoride ion (F-).”
—–SCHER
Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water 16 May, 2011
And looking at another of Diane’s “references”, Dr. Richard Sauerheber, whose paper she cites. Well, it appears that Dr. Sauerheber has a really neat tie-in to another of Diane’s sterling “references”, the website with the catchy, and very objective sounding, “fluoride-class-action.com”, which is the website of “Attorney Deal”, the esteemed member of the bar and Connett affiliate, who seemingly spends his time in pursuit of class action attempts against fluoridation. It seems that the purely objective Dr. Sauerheber is the “scientific consultant” for “Attorney Deal”. Unless Dr. Sauerheber very generously volunteers his time working for “Attorney Deal”, it is probably a safe assumption that Dr. Sauerheber is paid by the fluoride opponent attorney who apparently seeks to make money off of lawsuits against water fluoridation.
Small world, isn’t it? All antifluoridationist roads seem to lead back to Connett……..
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
well Diane the question I have for you is how this nasty acid gets past all the health authority’s worldwide to get in the water. And I bet you are not making any noise about Folic acid in your bread As usual with your type ,very selective. Looking at some of your links ,they site known activists and no real research documents, because there is non that say fluoride is dangerous to humans in the .7PPM range
LikeLike
Steve cosmetic damage is still a cost to the system…that’s the point..dental fluorsis is cosmetic and may be easily fixed as you say but at the end of day it is still damage
There are protocols for testing, designed by smarter people than me, for food additives and drugs not sure how you would classify F. I would certainly be prepared to contribute towards the cost of such independent testing if the correct protocols are in place. The result should clarify either for or against.
Human populations are as you say very difficult to test for the reasons stated especially if we are to look at long term chronic exposure, Acute is much easier (accidents leading to harm(poisoning) or death), therefore in the case of chronic all food, water, possible exposure by absorption through skin, all must be strictly controlled over a long period.
With humans you could only do with with small sample which would be declared invalid for some of the reasons you stated and sample size and the time required for the human trials
That only leaves the tried & tested protocols. Paul & Ken would likely have some ideas on the type of protocols required
The reason for mentioning other halides eg chlorine is they all belong to a group of chemical (periodic table) that react similarly and form mixed halide compound under certain conditions so it would be logical (no papers I could find) from a chemical point of view that the oxidation effects of these on the human body would be similar and therefore could have an addictive effect though Iodide is supposed to protective as far as F and thyroid hormones
(google iodine protective of fluoride if you want more) Also Both F & chlorine are used in pesticides
Hope this clears this issue,
LikeLike
“Or, you can realize, as did Levy in his Iowa study, that is impossible to measure exactly the total fluoride intake from all sources, given the enormous number of uncontrollable variables”
This part of the problem and the reason you have a debate
“and instead be satisfied with the knowledge that total daily fluoride intake from all sources falls far short of established upper limits before adverse effects will occur.”
LikeLike
Ian, evidently I am not making myself clear. Mild dental fluorosis is not “damage”, it is a non-issue that antifluoridationists have tried their utmost to trump up into being a major disorder because they have nothing else. Mild dental fluorosis was not considered by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride to be an adverse effect. It is not considered by many to even be undesirable, due to the fact that mildly fluorosed teeth have been demonstrated by Kumar to be more resistant to decay. You seem not to understand that the costs incurred by individuals and society due to preventable, untreated dental disease are astronomically greater than any related to dental fluorosis. If you are concerned about the cosmetics of barely detectable white spots on teeth then you should be scared to death about the cosmetics of black dental decay.
If you want to attempt to find your line of toxicity, feel free. The margin between what can be ingested on a daily basis and that which will cause adverse effects is more than enough to allay any fears of toxicity related to water fluoridated at 0,7 ppm.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steven, I assume tooth enamel varies in colour naturally across a population. By naturally, I include other reasons including exposure to other things, take extreme example of tetracycline. Is this not so?
LikeLike
(delete naturally substitute other reasons).
LikeLike
Exactly, Richard. Enamel varies in shade from individual to individual. This can be intrinsic or extrinsic (stain). Interuption in enamel development can occur for various reasons, fluorosis being but one. Trauma to the oral area during tooth development can cause different coloration at the point on the tooth which is in development at the time of the trauma. Same for illness. Systemic illness can cause an interuption in enamel development, as can, as you mentioned, certain medications, and of course fluoride. Far more often than not when people claim they can easily spot dental fluorosis, they are either seeing discolorations of teeth due to factors other than fluoride, or are seeing the effects of exposure to much higher levels of fluoride than are present in fluoridated water, well water for example, or high concentrations of environmental fluoride such as that which may have been emitted into the air by industry. Discolorations due to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm will not be noticeable at normal speaking distances, under normal lighting, and probably not even at distances closer than that unless the person viewing it is specifically looking at the teeth for signs of fluorosis.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Zac, I am not approving your comment and will moderate future comments of yours. It is too antagonistic and off subject. We are attempting to moderate comments in this current debate to prevent the usually hostility, abuse, trolling and copypasta normally experienced on this topic. This is something both I and Paul Connett agreed on as a condition for the exchange. So far I think this has worked well and the discussion has been really good and informative.
Feel free to make comments relevant to the articles and keep out the antagonistic material and I will approve them. We welcome honest discussion with comment made in good faith.
LikeLike
U.S. court decisions have rejected the argument that fluoride is a “medication” that
should not be allowed in water. The American Journal of Public Health summarized one
of these rulings, noting that “fluoride is not a medication, but rather a nutrient found
naturally in some areas but deficient in others.”
LikeLike
Zac
Under the guise of being open-minded and science oriented, you present nothing more than the same, stale arguments against fluoridation that have been presented by antifluoridationists since this public health initiative began 68 years ago. The “forced medication” nonsense dates back to the ’40s and ’50s with the John Birch Society leading the way with that. To say that “now it is in dispute whether it is safe or not” demonstrates either a total ignorance of the history of this initiative, or an intentional effort to mislead the public, neither of which belong in an intelligent discussion. This “dispute” has been presented by antifluoridationists since day one of fluoridation. If you want to contribute anything of significance to the issue my suggestion is for you to first properly educate yourself on it from reliable, respected and original sources.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I believed in water fluoridation for more than 30 years. But then I found out it was the #1 trigger for my chronic migraine headaches. Fluoride is NOT right for everyone and no matter what the science says, putting it in the public water is unconscionable. It’s a medicine I can’t take and don’t want.
I grew up in California and started drinking fluoridated water in 1976. Eight years later, I got my first migraine though we have no family history. I tried everything to prevent and treat them: diet changes, exercise, sleep, meditation, yoga, acupuncture, on and on and on. I had headaches a few times a month for the first 20 years. Then about 10 years ago, the headaches progressed to a daily occurrence. I had a painful headache every single day!
Then last December, someone suggested fluoridated water might be causing the headaches. I was such a believer in fluoride’s safety, it took a few months for me to give it a try. But eventually I did.
Within 3 weeks my daily headaches were gone. It’s been 8 months and my entire life is improved; I’m no longer in chronic pain. The only headaches I get now are triggered by predictable causes, like wine. When I control these items, I have no headaches. 30 years of pain gone, just from cutting out fluoridated water. Mystery solved. I can’t tell you what this has meant to my quality of life.
Those who are pro-fluoride argue the benefits for teeth and don’t seem to believe in the negative side effects for the rest of the body. I’ve had my fair share of cavities and tooth decay. But even if I hadn’t, I’d say I should have been given the choice. No one had the right to inflict years of pain upon me. I’m sure the public health officials and voters thought they were helping me. But giving a one-size-fits all medication to every member of society without consideration of their medical history or sensitivity to medication is not fair, ethical or effective.
LikeLike
PS: I’ve been reading the comments on the other pages and anticipate I’ll be challenged shortly esp. about the other additives in water. Before you do, let me say I’ve been testing my theory on fluoride vs. other nasty stuff in water, like chlorine. I have been able to test my theory that it’s the fluoride and nothing else by reintroducing fluoridated toothpaste after taking a break when I was in a headache-free phase. This is how I figure out all the items that trigger headaches; cut them out, then reintroduce and see what happens. In this case, my headaches came back. Same with fluoride treatments from the dentist. Same with fluoride from other sources, like grape juice. Each time I reintroduce, the headaches are back. This is why I believe it’s fluoride and not just the general additives in tap water.
LikeLike
Hi Julie,
Just wondering why you think Chlorine is nasty when it kills so many bugs that could kill us…salmonella, cryptosporidium…pathogens etc etc? What do you mean by nasty?
LikeLike
Hi there – By nasty, I meant harmful. Should have said that. I understand the job it does killing those things you mention. I’m not arguing against it. I’m saying I’m confident it’s not the chlorine, or other water ingredients, that are giving me headaches.
LikeLike
mmm….just wondering how you measure your total fluoride intake from the air you breathe, foods you eat and liquids you drink?
Or do you estimate quantities this based upon your perception?
…and will you cut these sources out if your headaches become migraines?
LikeLike
Well, Julie, looks like you’ve got it all figured out with your “testing”. You should submit this study to the journal “Fluoride”. They’d probably publish it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Your sarcasm is not necessary, Stephen. I get that my story is anecdotal and I know that my tests are unscientific. I’m sharing because I’m concerned about the safety of fluoride. I’d like to reiterate that I was extremely skeptical. I did NOT expect that the elimination of all sources of fluoride would help with my headaches. However, I did expect that the other things I tried over the years would work; they didn’t. I would be grateful if you can help me by sharing the names or links to studies that prove there is no negative impact to the rest of the body, esp. the brain, from long term exposure to fluoride? I haven’t been able to find these. Those studies I have found that address other parts of the body support the case of those against fluoride and many say they are inconclusive. So which studies about the body are conclusive and prove not safety for the body?
Christopher, as I’m sure you understand, it’s very difficult to measure the intake of any substance we consume outside of a lab setting. And with the introduction of pesticides containing fluoride, this makes it especially hard. I’ve tried to measure intake, but it’s been very hard without lab equipment. But yes, I definitely cut out sources when I discover they trigger migraines.
Julie
LikeLike
Type-O … I meant: So which studies about the body are conclusive and prove safety for the body?
LikeLike
well julie there had been fluodated water in the U.S.A for 68 years with 73%of the population taking it. If there was anything that was causing major health issues ,I,m sure the 3200+ research papers would have sited it by now.Just go to any of the major health websites and you will find there full support of fluoride The leading health and medical organizations support water fluoridation. This list includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association, the Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Family Physicians. We can trust their knowledge and expertise.
LikeLike
Julie, demanding proof of a negative is a standard antifluoridationist tactic which, by design, creates an endless process of putting out unsubstantiated claims then demanding proof that they are invalid. This is not valid science. You must first have valid evidence that a problem exists before credibly demanding proof that it does not. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, your anecdotal study notwithstanding.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hi Julie,
you say ” I’m saying I’m confident it’s not the chlorine, or other water ingredients, that are giving me headaches”
I’m curious, what gives you this confidence? Why must it be something in the water? What about other environmental influences ….physiological…psychological…nagging kids?!
Why have gravitated on fluoride?
LikeLike
Steve – I’m demanding proof of a positive. Is it positively safe? Shouldn’t that be a requirement for anything you give to every member of a community, city or country? If you can’t prove its safe, why is it in my water? Just because it’s been in use for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s safe. People have been using aspirin for more than 100 years. People have been eating iron since the dawn of time. Does that mean those items are recommended and safe for everyone? Or that any level consumed is OK? Or that these items won’t damage one part of your body while helping another? Of course not, so why should we say that any level of fluoride is safe for a society of citizens with all sorts of backgrounds, illnesses or sensitivities?
I’m just not clear on the reasons for giving everyone fluoride via water we can’t live without. Why can’t those of you who want it, buy it at the store with your toothpaste, rinse and floss? There are many who shouldn’t consume fluoride, so why give it to all of us?
LikeLike
Hi Christopher – I’m confident because I used the same approach with fluoride as I’ve used with any other thing that I’ve suspected gives me migraines. The approach I take is like allergy testing: I eliminate the item completely, wait until I’m headache free for more than a month, then I reintroduce it without changing anything else, then I wait. When I reintroduced fluoride, I didn’t use tap water, I used toothpaste. Then I tried fluoride supplement pills. Then I tried it with grape-juice, chicken nuggets and other items people have claimed have high amounts of fluoride. I also get headaches from Tylenol, blue cheese, sleep deprivation … fluoride is not the only trigger. So of course I avoid all those things too.
I’ve been testing for 30 years and have it down to a good routine. There are other factors: I didn’t get headaches when I lived in non-fluoridated cities; when I recently moved and used fluoridated toothpaste for 2 weeks, my headaches came back, etc. Also, when I visit non-fluoridated cities, I drink the tap water and I’m fine (I did this for 2 full weeks over the summer).
It’s only been 8 months and I would gladly participate in a controlled study if there was one. Anyone who knows me understands how much I’ve done to find the cause of these migraines. I’ve had MRIs (at the insistence of my worried father), tried medication, changed all sots of things in my life, but nothing got rid of the daily headache. That is until I removed fluoride. I have been very surprised to learn this is the cause. I wish it weren’t; it’s expensive to avoid fluoridated water where I live.
LikeLike
Julie, it is not possible to prove guaranteed safety of ANYTHING. It would make no difference how much proof was provided on the safety of fluoridation. There would always be an endless chain of unsubstantiated claims made with demands for proof that they are not true. This is demanding proof of a negative and is exactly what you are doing, i.e. “There could be a problem here, so prove that there is not”. The fallacy of your argument about fluoride and your headaches is that even in non-fluoridated areas you were still ingesting fluoride in your water, as it exists there naturally, in foods that were grown and/or produced using fluoridated water and in beverages which contain fluoride. That you didn’t have headaches when living in these cities is clear evidence that fluoridated water is not your problem.
Provide valid evidence that a problem exists with fluoridated water and you may have a credible demand for proof that there is not. Otherwise you do not.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steve, Even if fluoride didn’t cause my headaches, which is does, you still haven’t answered: Why can’t those of you who want it, buy it at the store with your toothpaste, rinse and floss? There are many who shouldn’t consume fluoride, so why give it to all of us?
LikeLike
Julie, your question about buying fluoride at a store raises the issue of social policy. Interventions like water fluoridation, salt fluoridation and iodisation, etc., are social health policies. There will always be people who oppose them but in a society there are always gives and takes. We need to balance freedom of choice against social good. Science can inform this decision of balance but it cannot make the decision for us. Often misrepresentation of science arises because people are using science as a proxy for values issues.
In his last response Paul avoided this issue as he felt my comments on it were a personal attack on hike. However, it is a basic issues which I hope we can return to in later articles.
>
LikeLike
Julie,
You seem to be confused when you say there are many (people) who shouldn’t consume fluoride.
As fluoride is ever present in our air, water, food and bodies – can please qualify what on earth you mean?
LikeLike
In this world there is no way you cannot get fluoride, it is a natural mineral in everything you consume and it is also produced by volcanic activity ,and added to the air, so the statement “why give it to all of us” is nor relevant, all that we do is adjust the level of fluoride to the optimim level for teeth repair, The decision to fluodate is made for the greater good of the community . there will alway be some people who for personal reasons do not like it , but that is life, Everybody has some community decisions that they question
LikeLike
Julie, you clearly demonstrate my point that fluoride opposition is grounded in personal ideology, not facts or science. In spite of my having provided you with the fact that you were still consuming fluoride when you claim your headaches ceased, you deny the facts and persist with your belief that fluoride is the root of your problem. This would be the case no matter how much proof of safety is provided to you. As long as that proof differs from your ideological objection to fluoridation, you will simply deny it. Ken has already very nicely addressed your question as to why add it to water, so no point in my adding else to that. Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Thanks Ken. I do appreciate this debate and what you’re doing here. I really wish the science would answer my questions, but as it does not, you’re right, I’m left to the moral argument of asking to just have it kept it out of my water. I am still searching for answers. I can spend all day trying to prove fluoride causes my migraines. I’ll never satisfy this group; and that’s OK. My methods are not proven but I know a high amount of fluoride is a trigger just like you know what food gives you an upset stomach. Trial and error. Nothing else changed for me other than removing fluoride. 10 years of daily headaches are gone. I don’t expect that to be enough for the scientific community, but it’s enough for me. And I wish it were enough to encourage a second look at fluoridation.
I do worry for others. My motivations are as genuine as your desire to help the community improve their dental health. I say it shouldn’t be in the water because my health is as important as the next person’s. There are other ways to get fluoride than adding it to the water. We don’t have to give it to everyone. We chose to and I’m hoping as a collective we will reconsider.
And Christopher you seem to be confusing naturally occurring fluoride with the man-made versions used in most community water and to manufacture pesticides. I’ve checked the naturally occurring fluoride levels in those cities where I lived and didn’t get headaches, and they were not even close to the amount that is added to fluoridate with chemicals (.02ppm vs. the average of .07-1.3ppm; I started getting fluoride in the 70s when levels were much higher). Only 10% of the US, where I live, gets natural fluoride. Everywhere I’ve lived gets the man-made kind. And just because I can tolerate small amounts of fluoride doesn’t mean higher doses can’t harm me and give me headaches.
As for those who shouldn’t consume fluoride, off the top of my head the short list would be infants, people with kidney disease, people with HIV. These are recommendations from groups like the CDC and National Kidney Foundation.
Julie
LikeLike
brief pause for comedy
LikeLike
Good one, Richard!!!
Steve, Your support of fluoridation is also ideological. It’s not a character flaw. You have your ideology and I have mine.
Yes, I was still consuming smaller amounts of fluoride when my headaches ceased, but not as much. To say that because I can tolerate small amounts means I have no issues with fluoride is an oversimplification. Perhaps you can have 1 or 2 beers and be fine. What happens when you drink 15 or 20? Our bodies can tolerate small doses of many things, but this does not mean that higher doses can’t have a negative impact. Or that what is tolerable for you is also tolerable for me.
I believe we’re overdosing many with fluoride. And nothing I’ve read in the arguments here has convinced me that the benefits outweigh the risk. I do believe water fluoridation is a risky practice and I hope it ceases one day very soon.
I’ll bow out now. Thank you all for the lively discussion.
Julie
LikeLike
Julie – there is absolutely no difference between “man made” fluoride and “natural” fluoride. Yes, the concentration could be important – often the natural levels are higher than for optimally fluoridated water. Anyway, your quote of 0.02 seems exceptionally low. In our area the source water is around 0.2-0.3 ppm and peaks about 0.6 ppm.
Everyone gets natural fluoride – even if it is only at 0.02 ppm in the drinking water – but more normally it would be around 0.1 ppm or greater. Then of course you get it in your food, etc.
Be careful when you refer to recommendations. The recommendations for bottle fed infants is always being misquoted by anti-fluoride activists. There is usually no warning of danger, even though intake may approach and sometimes exceed recommended maxima. The usual statement that parents who are concerned about this should occasionally use non-fluoridated water is taken right out of context.
My advice is to look carefully at the specific recommendations before relying on other’s interpretations.
In the end I strongly believe that decisions like this should be made democratically. Unfortunately our local experience has been that activists have been subverting the democratic process – helped by the fact that local body politics seems to attract some weird people here. Even though our referendum decisively showed support for fluoridation we still have to work to try to prevent our local councillors from ignoring the voice of the voters. They are being pressured to do so by the anti-fluoridation activists.
>
LikeLike
Not too surprising that Julie was pretty Hastie in bowing out…
So many inconsistencies…
LikeLike
Julie there is no such thing as “man-made” fluoride. Fluoride in water “naturally” is fluoride ions which are released from calcium fluoride. Calcium fluoride is picked up from rocks as water courses over it. The substance used to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rocks as a co-product of the process which also extracts the other co-product phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is utilized in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into the food that we eat. The HFA co-product of this process is diluted to a 23% aqueous solution which is then utilized to fluoridate water systems. When the HFA is added to water, it immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates) into fluoride ions and trace contaminants. The HFA no longer exists in that water after that point. The fluoride ions released by the HFA are identical to those fluoride ions released by the calcium fluoride. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion regardless of its source. The trace contaminants are in such miniscule concentrations that they pose no threat, whatsoever, of adverse effect.
Hopefully, you can understand from this explanation that there us absolutely no difference between fluoride ions which are in water “naturally” and those added with HFA. They are identical. This is just elementary chemistry.
Too, you need to understand that 0.7 ppm fluoride is an extremely miniscule amount. It is not a “high” concentration of fluoride by any stretch of the imagination. The difference between 0.2 ppm and 0.7 ppm in a water supply is not going to cause your headaches or any other adverse effects. Comparing the difference between 1-2 beers and 15-20 beers to the difference between 0.2 ppm and 0.7 ppm fluoride is so ludicrous as to not warrant any further discussion. Understand that ppm means 1part one substance per one million parts of the other.
You just need to reconcile yourself to the fact that although you have convinced yourself that fluoridated water is responsible for your headaches, the facts clearly indicate otherwise.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Julie, there is a large chasm in methodology between your use of confirmatory bias over a suspicion you harbour regarding fluoride and headaches to the more usual home screening of foodstuffs etc for allergenic effect as even recommended by health practitioners.
When a doctor or dietitian suggests removing and reintroducing foodstuffs etc to ascertain effect they are
1. dealing with known potential allergens, not a substance with no proven links to the symptoms claimed (fluoride/headaches)
2. the procedural results of home/dietary allergen screening are regarded as indicative only and are usually then clinically tested with dermatological scratch tests etc.
Of, course, you are entitled to your theory.
Do you have another?
LikeLike
Hi Ken – Your comment came to my email, so I wanted to respond quickly on one point. For one city I lived in for 3 years headache free, my mistake their report shows .03ppm. Here is the report. https://www.calwater.com/docs/ccr/2012/ch-ch-2012.pdf. Yes, this does seem very low.
My comparison of beer was to make the point that we all have different body chemistry and we all tolerate things differently. Why don’t you address that point instead of focusing on the metaphor? I’m not a scientist or doctor; I’ve never claimed to be. And I never claimed the elimination diet I’m following is lab-approved.
As for Christopher’s comment, I’m bowing out because it’s really pointless to allow myself to continue to be attacked by all of you. You’ve been dismissing of everything I have to say. It’s clear you don’t believe my story. You’re putting me into a box with a group of people you obviously dislike. You think I’m flat our wrong or that I’m lying. You have absolutely no willingness to consider that I may be speaking truth despite the line at the top of this page about that mind not working if it’s closed. If you knew my personal integrity and history, you would listen. But you don’t know me, so it’s easier to write me off as a fool.
That’s fine. You support fluoride. I used to as well, I get it. But it’s clear you have no interest in me and my personal victory, and more importantly you don’t care to consider that my victory may be an indicator that your belief may need to be reconsidered and that very thing you support may be hurting the people you want to help. I came here looking for answers, not to be lambasted. I’m bowing out so you can take your cheap, dismissive shots at someone else. Have fun with that.
LikeLike
Julie, you are not here looking for answers. We gave those to you and you refused to accept them because they don’t fit the ideology you seem so desperate for us to believe. You are here to profess your opinions, not obtain answers. It is not our minds which are closed. You are upset because we decline to accept your conclusions, refusing to understand that they are simply not borne out by basic facts. It’s akin to someone declaring that the Earth is square then getting upset with those who refuse to accept that. This is a microcosm of the whole antifluoridationist movement. A small, yet very vocal group who are so set in their ideology that they refuse to see what is clearly in front of them. A complete denial of facts and reality.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Julie, it is a pity you feel we are not appreciating you adequately here. But I do not think you have been “lambasted” or the subject of “cheap. Dismissive shot.” Perhaps you feel that way because your arguments have not been accepted – but that is life.
In my upcoming response to Paul I will refer to this aspect a bit. How science often becomes a substitute for values and politics and the scientific discussion a proxy for an ethics discussion. Personally I think we should try to have that ethics discussion – – but it does require people to stop making scientific claims which have no proper support.
I can assure you I do get lambasted and worse. By moderating this discussion I have excluded people who habitually do this. But the debate is being followed and discussed in several Facebook pages. On some of those I am called a moron, said to be suffering from dementia, and regularly get hateful comments fired at me.
It is refreshing for me to have such a high quality discussion here with good comments from both side of the debate.
>
LikeLike
Once again professing to know what I’m about. My mind is open enough to reconsider what I believed wholeheartedly for 30 years. I read all the papers in this debate looking for information. I did get some answers, but my mistake was commenting. I see from googling your name Steve that you’re all over the Internet defending fluoride. Strong beliefs? Or should we wonder who you work for? Clearly being very vocal is OK when it’s you and not those whom oppose you.
I’m not in denial about the facts … the fact is when I take fluoride, I buckle over in pain shortly afterwards. I guess after all this back and forth I realize that’s enough for me.
LikeLike
Hi Ken – Since Steve’s first comment was a cynical remark about my story being published in a Fluoride journal when I never claimed to be a scientist … well, that felt very dismissive. I suppose he’s just a poster like me and not affiliated with your site. Your comments have been great, which is why I wanted to respond when I read your last note. I guess I didn’t realize the passions. I really don’t think less of anyone who is on the side of fluoride. I just wanted you all to hear an honest account, a personal experience. Science gives us the data, but this is an issue about people in the end. Best of luck with your debates. I’ll come back and read them … will just resist commenting (something I’m clearly not very good at :-).
LikeLike
Another antifluoridationist habit…..money. Always ironic to me that antifluoridationists constantly allege that fluoridation proponents are being paid, somehow. Why the obsession with that is beyond me, but the only ones I know who are profiting from this issue are Paul Connett, his lobbyist, William Hirzy, and whomever else is paid within the FAN organization. It just seems to be beyond their scope of comprehension that a sense of responsibility to profession and fellow man could be motivation enough without being paid. This speaks volumes about the antifluoridationist mindset.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Actually, Julie, Steve’s comment about publishing in Fluoride was a dig at the journal, not at you. In my next article I provide just such an example – a paper by a non-scientist being simply an anecdotal report such as yours. Not normally the thing accepted by reputable journals – but that is Fluoride for you.
LikeLike
You’ve been dismissing of everything I have to say. It’s clear you don’t believe my story.
How so?
Nobody has denied that you took it upon yourself to test your theory and that you came to a conclusion.
Not a soul has disputed the story,
It’s just that nobody buys into your reasoning and justification for your validation of your theory.
Nobody is being mean to you.
Rather our reactions are because science has a lot of experience at sorting out the validity of evidence. In short, that is what science is all about. Your anecdotal related experiments are scientifically worthless.
Worthless.
LikeLike
Slott is incorrect. All the work I’ve done against fluoridationists and their belief system has been as a volunteer. I already have a job as a college educator. My medical research career spanned many subjects but research exposing industrial fluorides and why they are harmful, illegal, and useless was done on my own time. The article I published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health is available free online at: JEPH 439490.
R Sauerheber
LikeLike
Dr. Sauerheber,
I am fascinated by this discussion yet as another person noted on this blog…
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?
I have to be convinced that all of these authorities have got it wrong. That requires more than endless repetition each side’s favoured literature.
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
So why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong?
LikeLike
Oh, Richard, thank you! I forgot about you! Do you work as “Scientific Consultant” for “Attorney Deal” on a volunteer basis? Deal, for those unaware, has a website called “fluoride-class-action.com” which appears devoted entirely to stirring up class action lawsuits against fluoridation, which, of course, have had no success.
So, Richard, do you care to disclose any financial arrangement you have with Deal? If you are paid by him, or helping him to attempt to profit with lawsuits, how do you then expect credibility to be accorded to your paper which is obviously biased against fluoridation?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hi Julie,
Even though you have decided to bow out, I will add a little to some points you have raised – you said you would be still reading.
I will approach this from 2 perspectives;
1) Personal and 2) Public
First, your personal point of view.
As with your headaches, I sympathise. Headaches can be quite debilitating.
I have little doubt that you believe fluoride is the culprit. Really. You appear adamant. Unshakeable. I’m not denigrating this belief. This is yours. But it is a belief and it’s not science.
“Fluoride is NOT right for everyone and no matter what the science says, putting it in the public water is unconscionable.”
This says it all really, no matter the facts, the science, the truth etc, just put your fingers in your ears and shout blah blah blah.
“It’s a medicine….”
No it’s not.
“I can’t take and don’t want.”.
You actually can take it, it’s in already in the water you drink, the air you breathe and the body you live in. I think you need to be honest hear and define quantities and sources – perhaps take a scientific approach.
As for not wanting it, you have made this quite clear. Nevertheless, none of this is particularly relevant when public health issues need to be considered.
The second and by far more relevant perspective involves the public arena.
This blog is concerns a debate on the fluoridation of public drinking water. I find it particularly disturbing that you have taken your personal objection, (however unscientific and inconsistent) to fluoride and transposed it upon the public as a whole.
Because you think its bad for YOU, you think it is bad for everybody else.
As you say, never mind the science. Forget the (scientifically proven) health benefits to millions of other people; poor people, disadvantaged people, infants, children.
Its all about you. If you can claim one less headache then it’s all worthwhile.
Also, never mind the fact that you are educated and have the resources to avoid the locus of your non scientifically and inconsistently perceived belief – you have a RIGHT to it. Sod everyone else.
LikeLike
JLSS – we do not want this discussion to deteriorate to a slanging match between individuals – hence our moderation policy.
If you have a comment to make on the he articles or a point to raise you are welcome to. But nasty comments aimed at individuals will not be approved.
What about rephrrasing the content of you comment to address the points you were trying to make but leaving personalities out of it?
LikeLike
The comment by JLSS is one that has appeared, verbatim, on other sites in the past, posted under other pseudonyms. The suggestion to rephrase in the commenter’s own words is a good one.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
11-25-13
Dear Dr. Slott,
Your web site is the only pro-fluoridation web sites that features open discussion of the issue. Thanks at least for that much.
I oppose fluoridation for many reasons. For an overview see: http://fluoride-class-action.com/inauguration .
I oppose more because of the lead than the fluoride. Lead levels in tap water can be higher even than fluoride levels, because the fluoride used dissolves lead out of pipes and faucets. All agree that even small amounts of lead are toxic. See: See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.
Usually the homes, apartments, commercial buildings that have the most lead in their pipes and fittings are the oldest ones. They often contain lead-brass pipe and lead-copper solder. Even new homes contain lead in faucets, up to 8%. Expensive copper pipe is often welded together with copper lead solder.
The type of fluoride used most, fluorosilicic acid, leaches large amounts of lead from pipes and fittings. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/silicic-acid-2
In 2004 it was learned that in old Seattle schools – which had lead pipes and lead-brass water fountain bubblers – the lead level in the tap water was up to 1,600 parts per billion (1.6 ppm), a fantastically high level. That is double the 800 ppb (.8 ppm) level of fluoride allowed now in cities that fluoridate.. http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Elevated-lead-levels-found-in-35-Seattle-schools-1219258.php
When Tacoma temporatily stopped fluoridating because of a water shortage, lead levels in drinking water immediately dropped by a half.
Old homes, where poor people tend to live, contain more lead in pipes and faucets. Fluoridationists say they are trying to help the poor, but fluoridation harms the poor most of all by poisoning them with lead.
Unlike the pharmaceutical grade fluoride used by dentists, the fluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate tape water is not pharmaceutical grade. It is commercial grade and full of filth, including See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.
The amount of lead is high when you add in the lead leached. The amounts of the other contaminants is much smaller. However, to support drinking water fluoridation with fluorosilicic acid, one must assert convincingly that the fluoride, lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and thallium, all working together and potentiating the effect together, are not harmful. Who can make such an assurance. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the amounts of these contaminants causes no harm to those who drink them for life with no control on the amount they consume.
Look at the potential arsenic level for example. NSF’s own documents shows some shipments of fluorosilicic acid, when diluted into drinking water, have produced arsenic levels of up to 1.6 ppb. No one can say that one can drink this much arsenic daily for a lifetime in any amount with absolutely no harm resulting. Arsenic is a type one human carcinogen. Although 1.6 ppb may sound like a small level, remember that atoms are exceedingly small, and so by using Avadro’s method, I calculate that there are up to around 12.8 trillion atoms of arsenic per liter of tap water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm floride ion. That is a lot of atoms floating around looking for cells to poison. There are around 100 trillion cells in the human body, as soon as you drink around eight liters of tap water, there is an arsenic atom for every cell. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/arsenic-and-cancer.
You do not have to be opposed to pharmaceutical grade fluoride used by dentists to be opposed to tap water fluoridation. Pro and anti-fluoridationists agree on one thing: that we are taking in too much fluoride – when you add all sources together. This is why CDC and EPA recommended lowering fluoride concentrations form 1.0 ppm to .7 ppm. They were right to lower it. They just did not lower it enough.
A dentist who believes that fluoride is effective topically, should want drinking water fluoridation to end so that dentists would not have to worry so much about their patients being overdosed when topical treatments of fluoride combined with fluoride from drinking water adds up to too much fluoride.
By the way there are better ways to remineralize teeth than by applying fluoride. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/chocolate-toothpaste-better-than-fluoridated-ada-convention.
Fluoridated toothpaste is as big a scam as drinking water fluoridation. All the calcium fluoride which attaches loosely to teeth is swallowed when we drinking orange juice or something else slightly acidic. Fluoridated toothpaste does not significantly remineralize teeth. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridated-toothpaste.
The lead leaching problem only pounds another nail into the fluoridation coffin, which we will soon see being lowered into the grave of monstrous frauds such as tetraethyl lead, DDT, tobacco, and GMO crops. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/speeches/tetraethyl-lead.
Another primary reason why oppose fluoridation is because it harms most significantly the fetus in the womb. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/reproduction. We whould protect the most vulnerable. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fetuses.
If that is not enough, I also oppose fluoridation because it is illegal under the laws of most states, provinces, and countries. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/clarksburg.
Further, it is a sham, certified safe only by a sham agency, NSF. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham. NSF and the suppliers such as Mosaic and Simplot, are involved in a consumer protection act violation or worse by fraudulently certifying their fluorosilicic acid as safe without running the 20 toxicological tests required under the NSF 60 standard. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/illegal
I have put NSF on notice of potential liability. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/notice-to-nsf.
I have also put Simplot on notice of potential liability: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/suppliers/simplot.
Fluoridation is a faith-based, cult religion by those low level believers. For the chemical corporations that sell it and sit on the NSF board, it is a scam to turn toxic waste into a profit stream.
Sometimes it is hard to find your way out of a religious maze, but the first step is to acknowledge that you have been manipulated, sold a bill of goods, bamboozled, deceived, suckered. You have been the victim of false advertising and a big lie. All these are on a continuum with and should be studied along with mass hypnosis as a technique for manipulating gullible consumers. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridation-as-mass-hypnosis.
Christopher asks: ” Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong? The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fda-taken-over-by-the-industries-it-regulates
Dr. Slott, I hope you will soon come over to our side of this debate. I look forward to your response. Your blog is getting popular.
Note finally that our work at Fluoride Class Action is purely pro bono. I make a living keeping people from getting foreclosed. See http://www.mortgage-modification.attorney.com. I also sell books on Amazon. See: http://www.WhatToServeAGoddess.com.
Note also that Fluoride Action Network operates on a shoestring. Paul Connett is not getting rich doing what he does. See http://www.fluoridealert.org.
James Robert Deal,
http://fluoride-class-action.com
LikeLike
James, normally a comment like yours would not get though moderation. The number of links is excessive (even for this blog which has a limit set around 5). All the links are to one web site which you are clearly promoting. And you have lumped together a very large number of arguments which means you are unable to deal with them in any depth.
However, because there are arguments there which can be discussed I will approve the comment this time. Could you please take into account the issues I raised in your future comments.
LikeLike
Oh dear, Mr Deal gives us another long list of PRATTs we have mostly already disposed of.
But here is the money quote
Christopher asks [well actually, I asked] : ” Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong? The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you.
It’s a conspiracy people. No mechanism provided,
Ultimately, at the bottom of all science denying movements you find a reliance on conspiracy.
LikeLike
Roger Waters, your comment is personal and irrelevant.
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,,
First, this is not my website, it is that of Dr. Ken Perrott, who has arranged an excellent online debate between himself and Paul Connett.
I understand that your recent presentation, probably of these same arguments, in Clarksburg, West Virginia was completely refuted by a very knowledgeable fluoridation proponent, leading to the tabling of any further discussion of cessation of fluoridation by that city.
It is always interesting to me that that the one thing that draws fluoridation opposition leaders into comment sections is when I expose the hypocrisy of opponents constantly alleging that fluoridation proponents such as I, are somehow being paid by some unknown entity for our activities. It is only when this arises that I make the point that the only ones I know who are profiting from fluoridation activities, are the fluoride opposition leaders themselves. It is of no concern, whatsoever, to me how much or how little you, Paul, Sauerhaber, Hirzy, or any others connected to FAN make from this issue. The point is that I make absolutely zero from it, and I know of no other fluoridation advocates who make one cent for their efforts. As long as opponents keep raising that issue, I will continue to point out this hypocrisy.
It is also always interesting to note that fluoride opponents, including Paul and now you, constantly cite their own websites as “evidence” of support for their claims, instead of citing original sources from their primary sites. This, to me, is solid evidence of the fear you all seem to have of readers accessing accurate information that has not been filtered and edited through your own sites.
So, let’s first dispense with your argument about leaching of lead in association with HFA. Urbansky and Schock put this issue completely to rest.
“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 II 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., Schock, M.R.
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Next, let’s address the common confusion that you, Paul, Hirzy, and other opponents have between “pharmaceutical grade fluoride” and that from HFA. As I’m sure you’re aware, Hirzy’s recent petition to the EPA to cease HFA in favor of “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride” was summarily rejected by the EPA due to the fact that they easily discovered an elementary mathematics error by Hirzy which, when corrected, demonstrated his data to show just the opposite of what he had claimed it did.
According to the CDC. Please pay special attention to the next to last paragraph in this quote:
“Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.
The U.S. Pharmacopeia-National Formulary (USP-NF) presents monographs on tests and acceptance criteria for substances and ingredients by manufacturers for pharmaceuticals. The USP 29 NF–24 monograph on sodium fluoride provides no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. That leaves the manufacturer with the responsibility of quality assurance and reporting. Some potential impurities have no restrictions by the USP including arsenic, some heavy metals regulated by the U.S. EPA, and radionuclides.
The USP does not provide specific protection levels for individual contaminants, but tries to establish a relative maximum exposure level of a group of related contaminants. The USP does not include acceptance criteria for fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate.
Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.
AWWA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride.”
—–http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#9
Next, in regard to arsenic contaminants which may be present in fluoridated water at the tap, your anecdotal opinion and “calculations” are irrelevant. The United States Environmental Agency is the regulatory body of the United States charged with and empowered by the U.S. Government to ensure that the public water supplies are safe for consumption by our citizenry. In carrying out this duty, the EPA has set a maximum level of safety for contaminants, called the maximum contaminant level. (MCL). As a further measure of enduring the safety of the public, however, the EPA does not settle for MCL of water contaminants. Instead, it mandates that all water contaminants must meet the stringent certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 certification requires that no contaminant at the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements. If it did not, it would not be allowed by the EPA. Arsenic, the most prevalent contaminant detected in fluoridated water has been detected in only 50% of the fluoridated water samples tested by NSF. Additionally, in order to detect arsenic in ANY samples, it took 10 times the normal manufacturer recommended amount of HFA in those samples. The maximum amount of arsenic detected in those 50% was only 60% of the maximum allowed under Standard 60, which was only 10% of the EPA MCL. The amount of arsenic was so miniscule that it is not even a certainty that the amount detected using 10 times the normal amount of HFA was not that which already existed in the water “naturally”. Any other contaminants detected in fluoridated water were more miniscule than arsenic.
You may certainly argue your personal, anecdotal opinion on the safety level of arsenic against the scientific findings and standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but I don’t much like your chances.
———http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals
Next, the CDC and the EPA did not recommend “lowering fluoride concentrations from 1.0 ppm to .7 ppm.” In 2011, in recognition of the fact of more fluoride availability from sources outside water now, than were present when the initial optimal level of fluoride was set as a range between 0.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm, the CDC recommended that the optimal level be changed to simply the lower end of that initial range, 0.7 ppm. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the government entity responsible for establishing the optimal level of fluoride, has not yet affirmed that recommendation, but is expected to do so. This is exactly how our regulatory oversight bodies should work. It is not any sort of negative, as opponents seem set on attempting to portray it.
Your unqualified anecdotal opinions on the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste, or the best manner of remineralizing teeth, are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.
Your thinly veiled attempt at intimidation through threat of legal action is both lame and entirely without merit. I highly doubt that either Simplot or NSF legal departments have given your “notice of potential liability” anything more than a passing glance before deeming them of no merit, whatsoever. Fluorosilic acid meets all Standard 60 certification requirements, with your charge of fraud between utterly ridiculous.
“More than 40 states have laws or regulations requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid] to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a concentration of less than ten percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maximum use level. The EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no known health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples from public water systems to be well below these levels.”
——Reeves TG. Current technology on the engineering aspects of water fluoridation. Paper presented at National Fluoridation Summit, September 8, 2000 Sacramento, CA.
The rest of your “religious cult”, conspiracy nonsense is simply the standard fare of fluoridation opponents when all of their arguments have been refuted. None of it warrants further comment.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hi – James Robert Deal,
You answer my question “Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong?
With…
“The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fda-taken-over-by-the-industries-it-regulates”
So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?
Or that chemical companies are so cunning…so so cunning that they pin tails, nay, thousands of tails on scientists and call them weasels.
Gold.
LikeLike
Here is an editorial from the Portland, Oregonian which speaks to Mr. Deal’s belief that a corporate conspiracy is manipulating world-wide scientific opinion..
Speaking of the many arguments brought against community water fluoridation the Oregonian said:
“To believe such crackpottery is implicitly to believe the following: That state and federal health agencies are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens, aided by the American Dental Association and, we guess, credulous editorial boards like The Oregonian’s. While we don’t consider any of these groups infallible, or even close, it’s far more likely that fluoridation receives so much mainstream support because it does exactly what it’s supposed to. It reduces the incidence of cavities.”
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,
Perhaps I missed some earth shattering new, but the last legal case involving a fluoridation suit was judge in favor of the defendant, the Metro Water District of Southern California. (August 9, 2011)
References:
Filing:
Click to access Foli-v-metropolitan-water-district-of-southern-california-11CV1765-JLS-5373546-0-9893.pdf
Ruling:
http://ia601202.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourt…
FYI: Don’t be fooled with the above “fluoride-class-action” part of the above link. It isn’t Mr. Deal’s link………………..
LikeLike
What is the optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth enamel and dentin which reduces dental caries? Unfortunately, dental caries and caries free dentin and enamel have similar concentrations of fluoride. Therefore, no one knows the optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth.
Once the optimal tooth fluoride concentration is determined, then the optimal serum fluoride concentration can be determined. What is the optimal serum fluoride concentration to reduce dental caries. No one knows. CDC recommends <0.02 ppm serum fluoride concentration. Many in research studies have more than that.
And then, after the optimal serum fluoride concentration is determined, the optimal total fluoride exposure of fluoride can be determined. No one knows. And then, we can determine the optimal fluoride concentration from all sources and adjust water fluoride concentration to make up the deficient fluoride intake in the diet.
Too bad public health promoters of fluoride have gotten the process backwards and talk about optimal fluoride in the water without any clue what is needed in the serum to get the right amount in the teeth.
LikeLike
Patently the religiously inclined playing at science.
LikeLike
Patently the religiously inclined playing at science.
Futhermore, from his website, Mr Deal is also an anti-vaccination advocate. Although, curiously, he states that he is not opposed to vaccination “in theory”.
I guess that he is only opposed “in practice”.
LikeLike
Scientists and health administrators recommend a concentration 0.5 – 1.0 mg/l. With a mineral that varies considerably over different environments a precise measure within a range is probably not an issue. It has been established kidneys are perfectly capable of excreting excess levels (short of industrial concentrations of course) in fact a retired scientist, now active in the antiflouridation brigade during his professional days conducted the relevant research. I could look him up and quote the reference but he’s not hard to find. the antis seem oblivious to the fact (or determined to ignore it) that fluoride occurs naturally in the environment in varying concentrations. It was the discovery of that fact that resulted in probably the most cost effective measure ever introduced to public health.
LikeLike
So, Bill, you are saying that because Levy was unable to narrow down the optimal level any better than 0.7 ppm due to the presence of too many confounding factors now, that all of the observational studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation, should be discarded? Given that there have been no proven adverse effects of water fluoridated at the optimal level, we should abandon the initiative because we are not 100% sure whether the optimal level is 0.6, 0.7 or 0.8 ppm?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Stuart, I agree. It’s classic forest for the trees.
LikeLike
Dr. Osmunson’s search for the perfect blood/plasma/serum level for fluoride is only important to those who mistakenly believe that the fluoride ion has more in common with cancer chemotherapy than table salt.
With about 68 years of large population application we well know that a precise individual “dose” to create the “right” blood level is not important. There are a great many natural dietary substances for which exact dosing is not important.
No one worries about a precise “dose” for chloride or iodide, fluoride’s halide cousins. We don’t calculate our daily dose of salt, vitamin D, calcium or a bunch of other minerals and vitamins and dietary substances.
Fluoride is the 13th most common elemental material in the earth’s cruse, more common than carbon the basis of all life. Mammals and human’s have had eons of experience with low level fluoride in water. We do just fine with a wide range of intakes. Dr. Osmunson’s concern ignores the reality of all organisms interaction with the natural environment.
What we do know is that 0.7 ppm fluoride prevents cavities. No health effects are associated . .nada, zip, zero.
This is a superficially plausible but misleading and fallacious argument.
LikeLike
Dear Steve and Billy Bud.
Concept A: Proponents seem to talk about the concentration of fluoride in water as though water were the only source of fluoride. Total exposure has changed and must be considered and not evaded. Not everyone’s kidneys function the same and excrete fluoride. Estimates of mean exposure do not take into account kidney function, etc. Therefore, thoughtful scientists would consider blood serum fluoride concentrations a far better scientific measurement than fluoride concentrations in public water. Even fluoride in urine is problematic but better than public water fluoride concentrations. Any research not inclusive of fluoride serum concentrations is problematic and little more than gossip and speculation. Certainly talking only about water fluoride concentration is obfuscation at best.
But we don’t even know what fluoride concentration in the target organ is ideal. We are worse than the dark ages when discussion “optimal fluoride exposure.” Optimal for who, where, what when? Obviously the tooth. So how much fluoride do we want in the tooth? A most fundamental basic question.
Concept B: Perhaps some of you have read the EPA 2010 Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis
http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/Fluoridereport.pdf Page 105 Dec 2010 EPA Figure 8-1 The blue lines are fluoride intake. Above the black line (about a quarter of children) are those ingesting too much fluoride.
Let me underscore that concept. According to the EPA, about a quarter of children are ingesting too much fluoride for several years of their lives.
But the problem of excess fluoride exposure as presented by the graph is much worse.
The graph only represents the 90th percentile of the population for fluoride consumption. Any reasonable person would protect everyone or have labels of caution to avoid excess exposure. In other words, the 10% of the public who consume the most fluoride are not even represented in the graph. The most at risk are completely ignored. Are you willing to callously disregard 10% of the population?
And the graph does not include 100% of infants up to 6 months. Most at risk are those on formula made with fluoridated water.
And to add insult to injury, this is based on the PROPOSED new RfD which is a third more fluoride. That’s right. NCR 2006 said standards were not protective, so EPA changes standards to be less protective rather than more protective.
In order for me not to consider fluoridation a crime against humanity, please explain why proponents of fluoridation have no concern for at least a quarter of the children growing up.
Thank you.
LikeLike
One thing to remember is in NZ fluoride is banned from being put into baby formula, so that cuts their intake from other sources
LikeLike
Billy Bud. You suggest that no one calculates out their salt or iodine intake. Not true. On most food packages the FDA requires the sodium content to be listed. And many of us are concerned about iodine intake because thyroid functions are low, especially with higher intakes of fluoride. Of course you use the term, “precise dose.” We are scientists and should be able to at least have a range of dose for each tooth.
My point is, no one knows optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth. That is the entire purpose of ingesting fluoride, to increase the fluoride content of the tooth. But if it doesn’t make any difference, i.e. caries and caries free teeth have similar concentrations, then an optimal fluoride concentration of dentin and enamel is dental hyperbole. And until we know what optimal is for the teeth, we don’t know what is optimal for serum nor do we know optimal for total exposure.
And we are talking police powers forcing everyone to ingest more fluoride and we dentists are clueless as to how much we want them to ingest. Our fixation on water fluoride concentration as though everyone fits in the mean intake and exposure of fluoride is beyond ridiculous.
LikeLike
And further Billy Budd,
You suggest fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries. That is simply a lie. If fluoridation prevented dental caries, we would not have dental caries in those communities. However, we do. At best you should have a modicum of honesty and use the term “mitigate” rather than “prevent.”
After all, most dentists would be out of business in fluoridated communities if fluoridation did what you suggest.
LikeLike
Bill,
Fluoridation opponents talk about fluoride intake from all sources as if this some new concept, known only to them and completely overlooked by the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare that fully supports water fluoridation. The CDC and the IOM estimate total fluoride intake from all sources to be 50-75% from water and beverages. Do you dispute this?
The IOM established daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources to be 10 mg before adverse effects will occur, long or short term. With water fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, and 50-75% of the total intake being from water and beverages, before 10 mg intake could be achieved, water toxicity would be the problem, not fluoride.
With kids age 0-8 the daily upper limit is considerably less, but only due to the risk of mild to very mild dental fluorosis during those teeth developing years. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis requires no treatment, has been demonstrated by Kumar to be more decay resistant, and was not considered by the 2006 NRC to be an adverse effect. This is the only consequence of that “quarter of children ” whom the EPA reporting as ingesting “too much fluoride”.
Let me underscore this concept. The only consequence of these kids ingesting “too much fluoride” is the risk of their developing mild to very mild dental fluorosis. You do understand that the black dental decay prevented by fluoridation is far more aesthetically objectionable, and far more detrimental to health than the barely detectable white streaks of mild dental fluorosis, correct?
The same is true for infants. Given the fluoride content of most infant powdered formulas, the use of fluoridated water to reconstitute these powders may result in the development of mild dental fluorosis. If this is objectionable to the parents, in spite of the increased dental decay resistance, the CDC and the ADA suggest they either use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most of which utilize low-fluoride content water.
In regard to your “most fundamental basic question”, again I ask, are you willing to deny an entire population the proven benefit of water fluoridation because you want 100% guarantee of where the optimal level falls between 0.5 ppm and 0.8 ppm? If so, then you’d better look in the mirror if you want to determine who is manifesting a “crime against humanity”.
The 2006 NRC did not loosely state that “standards were not protective”. It specifically stated that the EPA primary MCL of 4.0 ppm should be lowered because it puts children at risk of severe dental fluorosis and is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. The Committee made no recommendation to lower the EPA secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, thus deeming that level to be adequately protective against adverse health effects. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level deemed adequately protective by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride.
Now, why don’t you explain why, given the non-existence of adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, and the countless peer-reviewed observational studies demonstrating the effectiveness of this public initiative within those populations exposed to it, you are willing to doom millions of people to unnecessary pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection of untreated dental disease that could have been prevented by fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Well said.
This debate has already caused considerable damage in a number of communities capitalising as it does on the fears of the uninformed. I have noticed in my supermarket a diligent search is required to find fluoridated toothpaste (I am dependant on rain water). I hear many manufacturers in the US have noticed a consumer resistance to fluoride and responded accordingly.
This is what pedantic busybodies with personality disorders are capable of.
LikeLike
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/05/22/why-portland-is-wrong-about-water-fluoridation/
Very good article. Makes a good point about conspiracy theories. A successful CT can never be discovered let alone proven. Therefore the absence of proof is evidence of a successful conspiracy. I think this argument was used at Salem. It’s called the fallacy of affirming the consequence. It features regularly in so-called “kangaroo courts” ie “trials” organised by people with no respect for truth or a level playing field. These people thrive on the Internet for the simple reason it is easy to be selective and even misreport with some degree of immunity. There’s a good chance you will tap into fears that close all but the strongest and determined minds.
LikeLike
Bill Osmunson,
You said;
“You suggest fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries. That is simply a lie. If fluoridation prevented dental caries, we would not have dental caries in those communities”
Not to displace Billy Budd’s right of reply, I will add my opinion.
You called Billy Budd a liar because he suggested 0.7mm prevents dental caries.
It does.
You have taken his suggestion and “pretended” it to mean ALL dental caries, in ALL people.
Not only is that stupid, it is ignores all of the useful information given and cited on this blog.
A Year 10/10thgrade child would not make this error.
Yet you, a person who purports to have both graduate and post graduate degrees as well as perhaps experience as a dentist have done just this. You haven’t really made an error have you? You created a straw man and called it a liar.
It is patently clear who is being dishonest here.
LikeLike
Christopher,
Significant name calling is taking place here instead of looking at the science. Using the correct terms would seem to be scientific and save some confusion.
Are you suggesting proponents of fluoridation are about the 10th grade level? I think not, but certainly proponents could be scientific in their marketing.
LikeLike
Bill Osmunson’s comment prompts me to raise some housekeeping issues related to moderation.
1: There will be some inevitable name calling and anger – it is an emotional issue. I am trying to discourage this but will only hold a comment back if it is very bad or it does not contain anything relevant to the issues being discussed. (Technically Bill Osmunson’s, your comment is like that). Also, I will hold comments back which are personal attacks.
2: Leave the moderation to me – continual bitching because you feel the “other side” is overstepping some line is not going to help.
3: There are people who are attempting to divert the discussion with personal vendettas and claims. I won’t let their comments through. But one of these, Paul Melters. Has provided a place where he is gathering comments from similarly mixed people to establish a case against me! If that sort of scandal attracts you have a look at his website http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/.
4: No, please don’t then come back and attempt to discuss or promote Melters’s website and charges here – that would be a diversion. You could attempt to to discuss it on his web pages (good luck with that – he doesn’t provide for any discussion – a bit ironic).
5: The best way of preventing sabotage of the discussion is simply to continue the discussion of the science and/or ethics and other points raised in the articles. Ignore the provocations.
LikeLike
Bill Osmunson
“After all, most dentists would be out of business in fluoridated communities if fluoridation did what you suggest.”
If we did what you suggest we would be back in the bad old days when most adults had their teeth grinning at them from a bedside glass of steradent.
LikeLike
Dear Steve,
Thank you for spending the time to review my comments. I think if we had the time to sit down and make sure our terms and concepts were fully understood, we would be at least in the same book if not on the same page. Your patience is appreciated.
To your first paragraph, I appreciate your acknowledging in essence that total exposure is a fact which needs to be kept in mind. If a country or community uses significant fluoridated toothpaste, fluoride pesticides, fluoride containing coal or other significant source of fluoride and another does not, then comparing only about half the total fluoride exposure could significantly affect a study or certainly an individual within the study. Until the age of 12 my daughter unconsciously swallowed fluoride toothpaste before she spit.
Before I go through some of your items, may I raise some concerns I have with fluoridation research. Please remember, my public health profession uses police powers to fluoridate based on my dental professions absolute confidence the benefits far outweigh the risk and the research is overwhelmingly supportive of fluoridation.
However, when I read the literature, these are some of the areas which the research fails to address:
• A. Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors
• B. Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
• C. Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
• D. Inadequate size
• E. Difficulty in diagnosing decay
• F. Delay in tooth eruption not controlled
• G. Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year around vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.
• H. Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
• I. Oral hygiene not determined
• J. Not evaluating Life time benefit
• K. Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
• L. Dental treatment expenses not considered
• M. Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
• N. Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.
• O. Genetics not considered
Each of the above in and of itself is grounds for concern to remove freedom of choice from patients and use a substance which has never been approved by the FDA CDER, or to my knowledge any drug regulatory agency world wide for ingestion for the prevention or mitigation of dental caries.
I understand the lack of research is not proof of harm, nor safety. However, using police powers which the courts agree can be used for highly contagious diseases, when the research is so flawed, gives me more than a little concern. Proponents need more evidence than “tradition” and “trust me” evidence.
You use IOM data for intake safety. However, when I last reviewed their evidence, it was incomplete and historical. Certainly the 2010 EPA data and NRC 2006 is more current.
You suggest those ingesting more than RfD to only be at risk of dental fluorosis. Are you suggesting there is no upper limit? And what about infants receiving about 250 times the dosage of fluoride as mother’s milk? Would you consider mother’s milk flawed?
And the theory that fluoride is beneficial for the teeth has many holes, such as complete cusp fracture with harder teeth. I know. The lack of research is not proof of harm. But we have been fluoridating for over 60 years and isn’t it about time we are honest and did research on tooth fractures. Limeback et al showed increased fracture with increased fluoride in teeth and the minimal research indicates about triple the prevalence of complete cusp fracture in fluoridated communities.
I would suggest the lack of good published research on improved dental health in fluoridated communities for the entire population as measured by a reduction in dental expenses or dental procedures is alarming. Huge claims are made for dental caries reduction and costs for treatment should also be less. The suggestion that fluoridation has a proven benefit is rejected. Too many studies fail to show a significant reduction in dental caries and fail to consider numerous confounding concerns. The benefits of fluoridation are highly over rated.
You probably remember the FDA CDER in 1975 rejected NDA’s for ingested fluoride based on the fact that the evidence of efficacy for ingested fluoride was lacking. You can bet your socks that proponents of fluoride supplements and fluoridation would get FDA CDER approval if the evidence actually showed efficacy.
You ask a question of me which is valid. Why would I put most of the world at risk, in your words, “doom” them to a life of pain and suffering because I’m opposed to fluoridation. Here are some very short points.
1. Brains are more important than teeth. I can fix teeth. Assuming fluoride reduces caries and does not increase fractures. But lacking studies we can only speculate with poor research.
2. Most developed countries have not fluoridated and their caries rates are similar to those countries predominantly fluoridating.
3. Dental caries had dropped in half prior to fluoridation and the trend in the USA continued with no significant change regardless of fluoridation.
4. The NRC 2006 called for additional research which has mostly not been done. Confidence level in fluoridation is poor at best.
5. Dental expenses for the population in fluoridated communities is not lower unless estimates based on assumptions are done or small groups of people are selected during short periods of their lives.
6. Comparing counties, or states, or countries does not find a benefit between the fluoridated and none fluoridated. (Mixed results, noting consistent.)
7. Mother’s milk is the normative model against which all other infant nutrition should be compared.
So have a happy Thanksgiving, being thankful for the freedom of choice we have in most of Oregon, Europe and the world to drink water which has not been intentionally medicated.
LikeLike
Stuart I do not agree that without fluoridated water that people would lose their teeth, please see http://www.orgsites.com/ny/newyorkstatecoalitionopposedtofluoridation/_pgg1.php3 and http://www.rense.com/general60/nationalflouridedatabase.htm
The opposite is true that with fluoridated water you can become edentulous. As stated in these articles: Kentucky would have been a very good place to set up camp and watch for the long-awaited dental miracle to happen, because Kentucky was 100% “optimally fluoridated” in 1992, and remained over 96% “optimally fluoridated” in 2000, in spite of eight more years of patient but meaningless miracle-waiting.
Despite this grand level of fluoridation, in a 2002 article in the Cincinnati Enquirer it was noted that, “In Kentucky, nearly half of the commonwealth’s 2- to 4-year-olds have cavities.” This is approximately twice the national average.
In 2003 the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gave Kentucky a “Fifty Year Award,” which is an award given to states in recognition of their community water fluoridation. In 2002, however, in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC named Kentucky as the top state in the U.S. in which residents had lost all of their teeth. According to the CDC report, 42% of Kentucky’s adults are completely edentulous.
Given the steady flow of fluoride coursing through Kentucky and its residents and given the over half-century-old promise of dental benefits, one might have realistically expected a very different dental score for this state that has complied so thoroughly with the demands and pressures to become “optimally fluoridated.”
The little-known truth, however, is that this edentulous outcome and problematic score is exactly what might be expected from a highly fluoridated population.
Fluoride is known to precipitate and exacerbate periodontal disease, because it stimulates the body’s production of prostaglandins.
LikeLike
Bill, obviously we will just have to agree to disagree. Your points are appreciated, but not new. Basically it boils down to the fact that you consider fluoride at the optimal level to be medication, and interference with freedom of choice. I don’t and neither do the courts each time that has been brought in by fluoridation opponents. It is simply a mineral identical to that which already exists in water which humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time.
You deem more studies to be necessary, including RCTs. I certainly don’t disagree with that, as scientific study should never cease. Our difference is that you believe fluoridation should cease until these studies are done. I don’t. There is sufficient evidence of benefit to continue, with insufficient evidence to warrant cessation while further study is done. Ceasing until all expressed concerns are satisfied means permanent cessation, because all concerns will never be satisfied regardless the amount, or quality of testing that is done. As I know you know, RCTs in regard to fluoridation are all but impossible. Limeback has an idea for one in remote Alaskan villages in which halo and other effects would be non-existent and fluoride intake could be accurately measured. I’m all all for that, and would be glad to be involved in such a study. Perform RCTs for effectiveness, IQ effects, and any other areas of concern. But, in the meantime, there is not sufficient reason for cessation of an initiative that simply adds a miniscule few more parts per million of fluoride ions to those systems which have an existing level below 0.7 ppm.
The problem is getting the funding and personnel for these studies.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Trevor – Rubbish.
Mary Sparowdancer is a crank (like you). Gum disease (forget the pseudoscientific posturing) is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present.
LikeLike
“Freedom of choice” that’s what it’s really about isn’t it. Freedom of choice is good but absolute freedom of choice is chaos and what choice is there when scare tactics are used by cranks and children are denied the benefits from infancy and apathy is rampant and even encouraged among certain demographics.
Read this.
http://www.rph.org.nz/content/08376712-fc6f-4ad2-ba10-4b077c690667.cmr
These are studies based on populations quite similar in locality and demographic profiles. The conclusions are quite clear. The city of Hamilton (NZ) is about to reverse a misguided decision to abandon fluoridation. The original decision was the result of surreptitious lobbying by anti cranks who even threatened legal action against individual councillors aided and assisted by a widespread ignorance of science among many and apathy by the wider public. It looks like closer attention by the wider public has galvanised a reaction. Plenty of New Zealanders have first hand experience of an older generations toothless grins and the efficacy of public health measures like fluoridation. The claim of widespread abandoning of fluoride around the planet is a myth. More than that it is an outright lie. Many European communities have relatively homogenous well educated societies. In spite of that many of them deliver fluoride in one form or another. Many of us are used to hearing downright lies dressed up in pseudoscientific pedantry. I have all of my own teeth (68yrs) with some ancient fillings but my older sisters all have dentures. My children and grandchildren (fluoride generations) have barely a filling between them.
LikeLike
If you doubt my claims about Mary Sparrowdancer, cosmic mystic extraordinaire, then read this. You will notice she claims the Feds are “poisoning” 70% of the US population!
Doesn’t sound like widespread abandonment (a frequent lie) to me.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/15/sean-dix-and-fluoride-the-hidden-assassin/
LikeLike
Looks like legal manoeuvring has resulted in the Hamilton City Council, NZ, deferring a decision to reintroduce fluoridation. There will be a lot of angry citizens as the referendum clearly supported fluoridation. The deferral is probably to await the High court ruling early next year on the South Taranaki situation.
>
LikeLike
Ken.
I’m not surprised. They threatened legal action and I’m pretty sure they obtained privileged access to address councillors in Dunedin. I believe mention was made of litigation. Councillors will kick for touch. These bullies have to be stood up to.
LikeLike
I thought the govt would have shown some balls seeing the recommendation was to centralist it. It just makes our job harder, fighting at the coal face
LikeLike
Hi Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
You said;
“Significant name calling is taking place here instead of looking at the science”
Ironic when you incorrectly called Billy Budd a liar.
“Using the correct terms would seem to be scientific and save some confusion”
Accuracy is important, absolutely.
So, again… you stated that Billy Budd suggested;
“fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries”
You have ADDED one word by suggesting that he said “fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents ALL dental caries”
Do you dispute this?
Taking phrases is out of context and ADDING your own meaning is neither scientific nor accurate. Given your accusation of lying, it is also dishonest.
“Are you suggesting proponents of fluoridation are about the 10th grade level?”
No. You either haven’t read my comment or you are AGAIN adding your own meaning here.
“I think not, but certainly proponents could be scientific in their marketing.”
I think that you need to scrutinize your motives and perhaps question why you are adding/changing others comments.
I find your discussion with Steve Slott quite civil and polite – also well considered, which is why I am surprised at your approach towards this issue.
LikeLike
Legal threats by antifluoridationists are common and meritless. Just as with Attorney Deal’s lame attempt at intimidation in one of these comment sections, their total lack of knowledge of of fluoridation substances, NSF standards and legalities of water additives makes for a lot of bluster about lawsuits that are nothing but a bunch of illiterate hot air. Unfortunately, some in leadership are unduly intimidated by this nonsense and succumb to these blatant intimidation tactics. Nothing to be done except try to keep educating leaders with the facts of water fluoridation such that they can eventually discern fact from fiction.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
We have a situation in New Zealand where central government and health authorities support fluoridation. Our Health Minister has publicly warned about minority activists decending on a city, picking off councils, and spreading misinformation. The other day our Parlimanetary health committee recommnded that resposnsibility be taken away from councils and managed centrally or by local health boards.
However, the government currently argues that they will not take decisions away from the community. This means that local councils who have been softened up and can be scared by costs of legal action can be manipualted this way – despite a clear referendum reuslt.
It seems to me that if the government wants to keep the decision at the local level it should pass legilation to indemnify local councils. One can’t run a social health poilicy if it can be so easily subverted by threats of legal action so that councils end up ignoring the decisions of the voters.
While the particular High Court decsion this particular council deferrment relies on may be available early next year these activists to keep the issue running for years by using appeals.
And it this tactic proves successful perhaps they could try similar action of vaccinations – another one of their hobby horses (together with chemtrails).
LikeLike
Here is an example of the unconscionable action taken by antifluoridationist attorneys and the extent to which they will go to advance their ideology. The below letter was sent to the National Kidney Foundation to intimidate that foundation into removing its name from the official list of fluoridation supporters. As can be seen, the attorney threatens the then current and past Board members as well as the employees of this non-profit charitable organization. Rather than waste its resources on legal fees in a protracted legal battle, and put its Directors and employees at risk for extensive legal fees they would have probably have had to bear personally, regardless the outcome, the NKF very understandably succumbed to this threatening action and removed its name from the official list of supporters.
In a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert Reeves writes to John Davis, and Charles B. Fruit, CEO and Chairman, respectively, of the National Kidney Foundation:
“Dear Sirs:
This letter is to make you aware of a window of opportunity for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) to act on behalf of its constituents in accordance with the organization’s stated mission. Your actions or inaction in response to this letter have the potential to help or harm many patients with kidney disease and responsible individuals, which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal actions now in development.
I have been asked if I would consider representing kidney patients in actions against your organization as a result of NKF’s misrepresentations concerning fluoride. I have not yet made a decision as to whether I would personally handle kidney cases or refer them to other attorneys. Frankly, I would hope NKF acts forthrightly and responsibly simply out of concern for its constituents’ health. But if you require additional perspective, experience has demonstrated that potentially responsible parties that take action quickly to remedy cases of negligent misrepresentation and who thereby demonstrate good faith can substantially reduce their financial and legal exposure. Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important and urgent matter.”
Sincerely,
Robert E. Reeves
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photogallery/2013/08/letter_threatens_kidney_founda.html
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
They’ll have a hard time establishing it is mass medication. It isn’t and has been consistently ruled so in many courts. Properly mixed in an aqueous solution it is a negatively charged ion which is why it is incorporated in teeth enamel and bone. Medications are complex compounds administered to particular patients to address particular pathologies. Fluoridation is simply a thoroughly researched optimisation of a naturally occurring element which has beneficial outcomes without discrimination. There are many decisions that have to be made on behalf of communities, that’s why we have elected decision making bodies in the first place. There are many conclusions regarding welfare and least harm that are made by educated people under approriate guidelines and implemented by suitably authorised bodies. This usually represents our best considered judgements and must have precedence over misguided uninformed opinion if the general welfare is at stake.
LikeLike
Re NKF and liability.
Bizarre, how can the NKF be open to legal action for basically adopting the same position as the US Surgeon General?
LikeLike
Stuart you said: Mary Sparowdancer is a crank (like you). Gum disease (forget the pseudoscientific posturing) is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present. You are the crank not me, secondly In 1936 Dean H.T. D.D.S- wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “From observations that I made in areas of relatively high fluoride concentration (more than 4 parts per million of fluorine) there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is an apparent tendency toward a higher incidence of gingivitis (periodontal disease).
Similar observations of the link between fluoride and periodontal disease have been made many times since by Dean & Arnold, 1943[9]; Day, 1940[10]; Spira L. 1953[11]; Ramseyer et al, 1957[12]; Grimbergen et al, 1974[13]; Poulsen & Moller,1974[14]; Waldbott et al, 1978[15]; Olsson, 1979[16]; Reddy et al, 1985[17]; Wei et al, 1986[18] and Yiamouyiannis, 1993[19].
You can read more about it here: http://ffwireland.blogspot.ca/2012/11/fluoride-exposure-major-risk-factor-in.html
LikeLike
Stuart: With 1.6 to 4ppm fluoride in the water, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage.” JADA 1944
Here is more information regarding this study from JADA 1944:
Dean Murphy DDS. 2008. The Devil’s Poison – How fluoride is killing you. pp. 62 and 62. Trafford Publishing
This change in chemical structure can cause problems in later dental work as was reported in 1940 by two dentists ‘The Smiths’ from Arizona:
At that time St David in Arizona had a fluoride content in drinking water of 1.6 to 4 ppm. They observed that:
“Steps taken to repair the cavities in many cases were unsuccessful, the tooth breaking away when attempts were made to anchor the fillings, so that extraction was the only course. That decay was widespread and repair highly unsuccessful among young adults was shown by an incidence of more than 50 percent of false teeth in the age group 24 to 26 years. Very rarely, adults were found whose teeth, though mottled, were free from caries.”
G.L. Waldbott et al. 1978. Fluoridation: the great dilemma, chapter 12, pp. 175-177. Coronado Press, Inc. Lawrence, Kansas.
Given the fact that now in the US fluoridation can occur up to 4 ppm, this result is a triumph of modern dentistry. Imagine at 24 to 26 years of age more than 50% of young adults without any decay due to fluoridation (and without teeth). Your anecdotal evidence that you have your teeth is meaningless. I know tons of people in non fluoridated areas with all their teeth with no cavities whatsoever
LikeLike
Trevor, referencing in this way occurs because you are copy and pasting. However, that is disrespectful to others here. Could you please provide proper reference details (and preferably links) in future.
LikeLike
You know Ken I don’t know why you don’t ask for references from the other commenters here, why don’t you ask Stuart for his references on Gum disease being caused only by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present. is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present.
LikeLike
Trevor, I am trying to encourage everyone to provide details – otherwise references are meaningless. The normal process is for people to check what is claimed.
This is to try and maintain a good level for the discussion – throwing references around for the sake of it proves nothing.
If you are trying to make a point and use defences to support it then it is your interest that is done properly.
Do you have a problem with that?
LikeLike
You say you are trying to encourage everyone to provide details but it seems to me that you only ask me for references all the time when I provide you with all the stuff I have. You don’t seem to bother the people who are pro fluoride for their references this is what I have a problem with Ken.
LikeLike
Trevor
you said,…” secondly In 1936 Dean H.T. D.D.S- wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association”
You are relying on something written pre WW2?
Seriously? Are you an idiot?
But to avoid any accusations of ad hominem attacks…this is a serious question, not a claim.
It appears that you accept the opinions expressed by ( mainstream) Public health organisations.
What about Public health authorities in the 21st century?
LikeLike
Christopher, I was making a point to Stuart that fluoride is known to precipitate and exacerbate periodontal disease, because it stimulates the body’s production of prostaglandins. I also stated Similar observations of the link between fluoride and periodontal disease have been made many times since by Dean & Arnold, 1943[9]; Day, 1940[10]; Spira L. 1953[11]; Ramseyer et al, 1957[12]; Grimbergen et al, 1974[13]; Poulsen & Moller,1974[14]; Waldbott et al, 1978[15]; Olsson, 1979[16]; Reddy et al, 1985[17]; Wei et al, 1986[18] and Yiamouyiannis, 1993[19]. So no I am not an idiot. Just because a study is old does not make it wrong.
LikeLike
Trevor, I am not asking you for references at all – just that out of respect for your discussion partners you provide reference details. How the hell can anybody check your claims without that?
Or are you afraid to provide details? Do you not have them? Are you just copy and pasting without checking?
LikeLike
I agree Ken that people have to be able to check claims being made about things. I am not afraid to provide details about what I say. I feel I proved my point that fluoride exacerbates periodontal disease and gingivitis and that without fluoridated water we would still have our teeth . I gave the quote “With 1.6 to 4ppm fluoride in the water, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage.” JADA 1944 and provided more details about this study. I also gave information from the book where it is found. I feel people here can check the sources and books I referenced as well. I am not copy and pasting without checking things. I don’t appreciate also people saying rude things to me such as Stuart calling me a crank and Christopher asking if I am an idiot this does not contribute to this discussion whatsoever.
LikeLike
If you agree with me, Trevor, why do you continue to refuse to provide reference details?
You are silly (perhaps even a crank) if you think you “proved” anything by such naive “quoting.”
I certainly cannot check your sources (your provide no information on them) or the books you reference (you don’t provide any information).
Unfortunately this sort of behaviour and naive claiming you have “proved” things does sort of mark you our as a crank.
But above all, it is disrespectful to your discussion partners to not provide such simple information.
LikeLike
Trevor, if you took the trouble to read Independant assessments of these claims you would find they are shot full of question begging issues. I suggest you look up “confirmation bias” on Google Scholar or SEP. Many casual commentators particularly in the US have never been outside their home county. Just talk to your parents, grandparents and great grandparents and see what they say. Oh! And stop watching that crap on Fox.
LikeLike
Furthermore Trevor, on most issues you will find renegades preaching to captive audiences who have all sorts of suspect motivations. You obviously source literature that confirms your convictions. That’s called “confirmation bias”.
LikeLike
Trevor this just shows you are completely ignorant on oral health. Brushing your teeth stimulates the blood vessels in your gums without which your gums will shrink producing gaps between gums and teeth in which bacteria and corrosive acids work on the enamel. If you are deficient in fluoride exposure this process of general deterioration will accelerate. For God’s sake man we are tought this in school dental clinics on NZ (while we had them anyway). Of course in some countries (and counties) that smacks of socialism and there I suspect lies the problem.
LikeLike
I gave you a direct link to a NZ report and that has references to original research and meta analysis. That is a published survey of already published peer reviewed papers ie it has been scrutinised independently (and secretly) by acknowledged experts in the field.
A common tactic by suspect naysayers is to quote sources that are difficult if not impossible to verify.
Just for fun why don’t you start reading publications that endorse the mainstream consensus, publications that are well respected by the scientific community. Seeking out idiosyncratic claims says something about you Trevor. It suggests you are attracted to the improbable. I don’t say this lightly and I’m not recklessly being ad hominen. while you are at it Google the psychology of the irrational. These psychological tendencies are not isolated to single causes or issues. It’s a personality issue. You will find a cluster if irrational and improbable believes. Typically the very same people are into Chem trails, alien abductions, UFOs, The New World Order, The Ulluminati and black helicopters. I’m not suggesting you are I am just saying if you google some if the names you are probably familiar with you will undoubtedly find that is the case. Just Google Mary Sparrowdancer and read a number of her preposterous claims. She is not an isolated case by any means.
LikeLike
Trevor – you talk of prostaglandins as if they were some sort of fearful invasive agent. They are (generally) vasodilators and possibly aid blood circulation in the gums (which would be good) though don’t quote me as I am neither a pharmacologist or a physiologist, but without them you would not be capable of penile erections. Be grateful man!
LikeLike
Trevor – the sources you quote (as far as I have ascertained) are committed, not to the truth but to getting rid of fluoride no matter how. Google John Yiamouyiannis for example and in rationalwiki and other posts you will find a man who denied the link between HIV and Aids. That makes him at least a crank if not certifiable. This was the man who spurned conventional treatment for his colorectal cancer and went off instead to Mexico and unscrupulous cranks who helped him secumb to his disease with Laetrile and vitamins. Hardly makes him worthy of the sanctification he enjoys in some circles.
LikeLike
I don’t seek to be deliberately hurtful but in defence of the many thousands of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who would be condemned to a lifetime of pain, expense and some ugliness not to mention systemic illhealth without public health interventions such as fluoridation I will say the following. In a different discussion forum (the imagined bizarre effects of wind farms) I stated the following.
“I check the background of proponents of the improbable and frequently find a pattern. These are frequently people with “issues” as they say in the trade. “Issues” that often go back to youth or childhood that have never been expressed and looked at (with qualified help). At some deep level pain or unhappiness is experienced and the poor sod seeks an acceptable explanation.” outside themselves of course. There are explanations of course and they are very often of a sexual nature which manifests itself in horror at “contamination”, contamination being of course an acceptable proxy for violation to the damaged person.
LikeLike
You can read more about it here:… (Trevor sadly links to a no-name blog that he found on the internet.)
No Trevor. Bad Trevor.
You’re not helping yourself when you do that.
Just because you got sucked in by a blog that tells you something that you want to hear doesn’t mean the rest of us have to go play “follow the leader”.
Stop parroting. Don’t just endlessly cut-and-paste.
….made many times since by Dean & Arnold, 1943[9]; Day, 1940[10]; Spira L. 1953[11]; Ramseyer et al, 1957[12]; Grimbergen et al, 1974[13]; Poulsen & Moller,1974[14]; Waldbott….
No.
Those are not your references. You just gullibly cut-and-pasted them from the blog you found. You have not actually read anything independently by yourself.
I agree Ken that people have to be able to check claims being made about things.
Practice what you preach.
So far what you have done is deeply unimpressive.
You haven’t checked anything at all.
It’s all “Oh yeah, a blog. I’ll go off and cut-and-paste it. That will show ’em. It’s got those funny citation thingies at the bottom too. Yeah. Betta cut-and-paste that too. Make look more sciency.”
I am not afraid to provide details about what I say. I feel I proved my point that fluoride exacerbates perio….
You couldn’t provide details if your life depended on it.
You’ve done bugger all in checking the source of the claims that you pinched.
Google John Yiamouyiannis for example and in rationalwiki and other posts you will find a man who denied the link between HIV and Aids. That makes him at least a crank if not certifiable.
Yep.
See, Trevor? Google is not your friend. I’d bet dollars to donuts that it never occured to you to actually google any of those authors. There was never a moment of caution from you that maybe you should vet your sources…. and straight off the bat, Stuart nails it by exposing a HIV denier.
This is a Kook that you cut-and-pasted.
You.
Nobody held a gun to your head.
You stepped in it all by yourself.
As Ken said…I certainly cannot check your sources (your provide no information on them) or the books you reference (you don’t provide any information).
I never do that. When I quote someone, I always cheerfully give the link. I don’t ever pretend to have read a paper. Nor do I just cut-and-paste some isolated quote from some paper that was culled by some other person from some no-name blog. Never. My standards of scholarship are way higher than that.
So no I am not an idiot. Just because a study is old does not make it wrong.
We’re not talking about the bible, you idiot.
We’re talking about science. Scientific research.
It’s not supposed to be a nostalgic trip down memory lane looking for ancient wisdom in musty tomes.
Old stuff gets routinely chucked in science. Why would you limit yourself to a study from before World War 2? That’s just more than a little bit precious.
The world of science has moved on since then. There’s lots of cool (..gasp!….) MODERN stuff out there. The year is 2013.
Embrace it.
LikeLike
Take another bow, Cedric. You never cease to disappoint, or entertain while slicing and dicing!
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hi Trevor –
You said;
“I don’t appreciate also people saying rude things to me such as Stuart calling me a crank and Christopher asking if I am an idiot this does not contribute to this discussion whatsoever”
id•i•ot
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiot
For the sake of accuracy I was asking whether you thought you fell into the first category rather than the second.
You have been foolish and stupid as explained in detail by Ken, Cedric and Stuart. I won’t dwell on this.
However it was silly of me to ask whether you believed you were an idiot; most people would answer in the negative regardless of overwhelming supporting empirical evidence.
I didn’t intend on being rude however, and if you have taken offense, I apologise.
I wasn’t making a comment about you as a person – I haven’t any idea on how much of an idiot (or not) you are in real life. I based my question simply on what you had written (or copy/pasted) as I found it difficult that any sane, normal person could actually spend time and effort to stitch together such utter nonsense.
LikeLike
Poor old Trev!
I know we have been giving you a hard time. Didnt mean to ruin your day. Don’t know how old you are but anyone can change their approach to things. Now I’m sounding patronising. But take this on board. Most of us don’t process data rationally all the time. Most of us have had to learn a lot regarding faith versus reason and the various kinds of reason(ing). It’s blimin hard work. Comments directed at you might seem harsh but you need to learn that if you feel tempted to preach to people who have dedicated the bulk of their adult lives in the pursuit of scientific knowledge (justified true belief) with facile arguments, you are going to get hammered. Particularly from australasians who are (in)famous in academic circles for being “mad dog” realists. We also indulge ourselves in a quaint practice called cricket which lionizes sledging, the art of putting people off their game by questioning their paternity among other things.
Cricket teaches us many things one of which is the insight that the world is divided into seasons, series, matches, innings, overs and balls. Any of these can be a triumph. Any can be catastrophic. The point being everyone can turn to a fresh page in life and try a new approach. I suggest you find a couple of good introductory books on scientific method and reasoning. Michael Shermer springs to mind. You’ll find him in a local bookshop or library.
I recall if I’m not mistaken you were bewildered by the fact that you have lost a good number of your teeth despite living in a fluoridated community. Can I ask are you or we’re you a consumer of nicotine or cannabis.
If so you need to reflect on the straight forward fact that unlike prostaglandins (vasodilators), nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. This WILL result in gum disease and teeth loss. Here is the really bad news. 54% of leg amputations in later life are attributed to lifelong smoking. Likewise cardiovascular disease and of course lung cancer. There’s a big price to pay in persistently backing the wrong horse.
As I said I don’t know your age but I gave up smoking aged 31-32 and within three or four months was running 8 miles a day (in my lunch hour), enjoying tramping (hiking) and mountaineering with renewed vigour and contemplating further university study. This had hugely beneficial effects on myself and my family. I developed a healthy respect for myself and realised there is always a path out of the slough of despond and onto a more rewarding upland.
LikeLike
Christopher,
It was many posts back, but I did not hear you use the word “mitigate.” As scientists, when something is prevented, it does not happen. If we prevent pregnancy, polio, or some other disease, it does not happen. If we mitigate the disease, then it is reduced in severity. Fluoride can both decrease and increase dental caries. At best it might mitigate, but it does not prevent dental caries.
My point is the correct term should be used if we are going to be scientists.
LikeLike
Ken,
You have come down hard on those finding serious flaws with fluoridation. However, when name calling and patronizing and attacking the messenger instead of the message is done by proponents, you join in. If you are going to be fair, then be fair on both sides.
LikeLike
Bill, I rather think you were being deliberately provocative and confrontational by using the pejorative term “lie”.
And now you are being being pedantic.
Speaking for no one but myself, I will nevertheless concede you the “point” as I believe that was really what you set out to score with the original comment.
LikeLike
The FD&C Act charges the FDA CDER with evaluating the scientific evidence on whether a substance is a drug or food, mineral, nutrient, etc. and NOT the courts. The FDA CDER has jurisdiction. And the FDA CDER has rejected the ingestion of fluoride because the research does not show it is effective. The FDA CDER has policies, pharmacists, epidemiologists, toxicologists, etc who read the literature and make difficult judgment decisions. The FDA CDER has agreed fluoride is a drug when used with the intent to prevent or mitigate disease.
Evading the authorized regulatory agencies is not proof of efficacy or safety.
LikeLike
Bill Osmunson – we both have “irons in the fire” in this discussion – my position is clear.
As the blog owner I am moderating the current discussion (and this has been so successful I intend to continue moderating other discussions here). I know those here who are stongly motivated in the opposite direct to me will inevitably complain about that moderation. And I am sure I will get similar complaints from local facebook pages (when they clam down and move on from calling me mad, a moron, demented, etc.)
I think I have been clear in my approach:
1: My main concnern is that the discussion not be sabotaged or derailed in the way internet discussions very often are. Consequently I am holding back in moderation comments clearly aimed at personal attacks, undermining the discussion or having no value to the discussion.
2: Let’s be clear – I am not holding back any because I disagree with their claims or interpretation of the science. Far from it – we want those sort of comments to contibute to the discussion.
3: I recognise people get emotional and express themselves forcefully at times. While from time to time I may comment to discourage this, I do not hold back such comments if they have something contributing to the discussion. Yes, I may even express my own frustration at times (and in other places I have sometimes apologised and withdrawn as a result – I am human). This is very minor compared with some of the provocations I have recieved on this issue – in NZ this intimidation has caused many professionals to keep out of the discussion. Whenever scientists or dentists do come out publicly supporting fluoridation the anti-fluoridation facebook pages and letters to the editor direct their (often childish) anger at the person. They play the ball rather than the man. I am trying to prevent that happening here – and so far I think this has been successful.
4: I think the best tactic for commenters when name-calling occurs is not to allow themselves to be diverted. To pursue the scientific or ethical point they intend to make. It dees no good to retaliate in the same vein.
Finally, bitching about my lack of fairness in moderation is, in itself, a diversion from the real discussion.
LikeLike
Bill, could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride (natural or added) in drinking water at the recommended concentrations. I realise such regulations can cover dental preparations etc., but our interest is specifically normal drinking water.
LikeLike
Thank you Richard. You are a reasonable person. Indeed, I wanted to make a point. I too have used the term “prevention” with regards to fluoride much more than “mitigation” so I am just as guilty of spreading the prevention lie as anyone else. As scientists we need to be precise with our terms and the precision is a life long struggle for most of us.
Now the question remains, does fluoride mitigate dental caries. I think it does. The debate is to what extent. And of more serious and weighty concern is whether the ingestion of fluoride has a net benefit to the teeth and human health.
Just like tobacco in the 1970’s when I was in my Master’s of Public Health and DDS education, seemed to have significant scientific strength raising concerns of harm. Yet tobacco smoking was done in my hospital, airplane, restaurant, and promoted by the dentist who’s practice I took over. And some scientists still feel the research of tobacco’s harm is not convincing. American Cancer Society is just now working on a new large study to determine whether tobacco causes cancer. Perhaps you would agree we need to spend millions more on tobacco research, however, In my judgment we have enough science to be reasonably certain tobacco is not healthy.
The same judgment skills need to be used for the ingestion of fluoride. It is unwise for us to look at one study or studies supporting only one side of the controversy. Using similar principles of critical evaluation for all research is essential. We are premature to accept poor, incomplete, and flawed studies as “proof” of efficacy or “proof” of safety or “proof” of harm.
So many unanswered fundamental questions remain unanswered about fluoridation. The experts to make the judgment are the FDA CDER and it is not their job to make the decision unless an application is made to them with the evidence presented. So far they have said “Not effective.”
For example, what cause the 50% decline in dental caries prior to fluoride use? No one knows. Did the subsequent decline result from fluoridation or the unknown? No one knows. Without quality studies controlling for confounding factors or even total exposure, makes studies highly suspect.
To give everyone without their consent even more fluoride when about 2 out of 5 show signs of excess ingestion (dental fluorosis) makes no sense.
And when most developed countries and dental associations have rejected fluoridation, the USA should pause and ask, “what do they know we don’t?” Seems to me the height of arrogance to say that everything just because we are doing it is both safe and effective and better than the rest of the world.
Simply too many serious questions and good studies finding little or no benefit. And too many serious limitations and lack of controls in those studies.
We need at least one prospective randomized controlled trial. Until that time, caution should be used.
LikeLike
Ken, To your first comment, I applaud you for at least trying to have an open discussion. Frequently proponents of fluoridation fail to show up to forums and debates. What you are doing her is really sticking your neck out and you are brave. Bravo.
When science is weak, controversy abounds. You are opening one of dentistry’s four most controversial issues.
LikeLike
Bill is there a link to the 50% decline in dental caries independently of flouridation?
I can think of several candidates for causation.
1. Education.
2. Diet change including in better educated communities an acknowledgement of the effects of free sugar.
3. Reduction in smoking.
4. Promotion of healthy lifestyles and the “glamorisation” of beautiful teeth by Hollywood et al.
5. The use of fluoride tablets in some communities prior to fluoridated water supplies.
LikeLike
You are opening one of dentistry’s four most controversial issues.
out of curiosity and assuming mercury amalgam is another issue what are the remaining two?
LikeLike
Ken, to your second question, “Bill, could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride. . . ”
Ken, you are now asking about the foundation of fluoridation regulatory oversight. I have many documents and will try to be very brief but this is complex, so don’t skim and skip. Please read carefully. Each item is critical.
The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act delegates the FDA CDER to regulate drugs (See also California Code 11014 and all states mirror FD&C Act) laws:
“21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”
Fluoride is listed in the USP.
And again: “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means . . . (B) articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease in man or other animals;”
Ken and Richard, stick with me. This is fundamental.
Fluoride is added to water with the intent to prevent (mitigate) dental disease in man. The final manufacturer of the drug has the legal responsibility to gain FDA CDER approval. Of course you will have lots of “but, Bill, what about. . . . ” and you are correct. However, I can’t answer all the concerns in the same sentence, so you have to look at the concerns one at a time. For example, if fluoride is not regulated as a drug, then it is regulated as a poison, pesticide, etc. Fluoride is not regulated as a food.
Intent of use determines jurisdiction. If intent of fluoride is to kill pests, then pesticide laws and approval are required. If the intent of fluoride is to treat water, then EPA laws and approval would be required. However, there is no dispute that the intent of adding fluoride to water is for the prevention of dental caries and the FDA CDER has jurisdiction over substances used with the intent to prevent disease. A clear and confident understanding that fluoride for ingestion with the intent to prevent disease is a drug is essential. Regulation is specific. EPA treats water. FDA treats people. Department of Agriculture treats plants.
Fluoride is considered lethal at 5 mg/Kg body weight, well within the 50 mg/Kg or less definition of a highly toxic substance of all state and Federal law poison (highly toxic substance) laws. In other words, fluoride is a highly toxic poison. However, all states and Federal law have exceptions for highly toxic laws such as, ” ‘hazardous substances’ shall not apply to . . . Foods, drugs, or cosmetics subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. . . .”
Ken, we need to dig deeper. Stay with me.
Regulation of fluoride has two options.
a. Either regulation under highly toxic hazardous substance laws,
b. Or under drug laws.
Based on intent to prevent disease, fluoridation is an unapproved legend (prescription) drug regulated under drug laws. However, if fluoridation is not a drug, then it is a hazardous substance. Either as pesticide or drug, misbranding laws apply.
The first step before the addition of fluoride to public water is for the public water provider manufacturer to receive written verification from the FDA CDER that the FDA CDER does or does not have jurisdiction over the addition, formulation, labeling, branding, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, and administering of fluoride to public water when the intent is to prevent dental caries in man. Simply ask the FDA CDER for written confirmation a NDA is not required. The public is placed at risk and not protected by evading designated authorized regulatory agencies.
Ballot measure, state and Federal laws apply to fluoridation.
Just as voters may with ballot measure vote for construction and payment of a new pipe line, water treatment plant or building, the voters expect the water districts to abide by all general and applicable laws and building codes which may not be detailed and listed in a ballot measure. For example, a ballot measure does not exempt other general laws. The voters have not authorized unapproved pipes, pumps, fittings, buildings, chemicals or drugs. And the voters expect to be informed should information and science discover flaws with the voter’s ballot measure. The fluoridated water label must clearly state dosage, risks, and cautions and specific wording approved by the FDA CDER. Government policy is notoriously slow to change when scientific evidence finds policy is flawed, especially when chemicals are misbranded and placed as a ballot measure.
The FDA CDER has appropriate policies and the scientific experts such as pharmacologists, toxicologist, and epidemiologists to make complex scientific judgments when evaluating scientific studies. It is not the courts, water boards, city’s or county’s roll to weigh the scientific evidence, but rather to ensure the correct government agency authorization and regulation is obtained. Citing a long list of health organizations supporting a practice does not negate the need for authorized regulatory oversight.
Authorized agencies in all countries will require a reasonable label for substances, especially for highly toxic chemicals regardless of dilution and for drugs. The label is required to be approved and applied by the final manufacturer of the substance.
The court in Coshow v. Escondid (2005) correctly ruled that the FDA does not regulate drinking water standards. However, the court should not be construed to suggest that the FDA does not regulate drugs simply because they have been diluted with public water. Would the court claim other drugs are not drugs such as penicillin or morphine if they are diluted in public water? No. The court also correctly held that the city fluoridated under police powers. Public Health actions with police powers, such as quarantine or mass medication, are restricted to highly contagious diseases. Dental caries are not highly contagious and if fluoride prevented dental caries, dentists would mostly be out of business.
Permissible existing maximum concentration of contaminants in water are regulated by the EPA. Some of these contaminants such as arsenic and fluoride are highly toxic and must be reduced if feasible (or the water not used as potable water). Additives are regulated by the EPA to treat and disinfect water. Contaminants are not intentionally added to water and are to be kept to a minimum. Maximum contaminant levels are not “authorized” concentrations of contaminants which a water district should attempt to achieve.
The formulating, manufacturing, and intentional addition of toxic substances such as arsenic or fluoride to water is regulated by poison laws if the intent is to poison people, or pesticide laws if used as a pesticide, or drug laws if the intent is to treat people.
The clear language of the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the EPA from regulating substances intended to treat people, such as fluoride.
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)
In 2009, HHS requested public comment on reducing the concentration of fluoridation to 0.7 ppm. Although HHS has several times promised to make a determination, the lowering of the concentration to 0.7 ppm will still not be protective and HHS has politically deferred action.
Ken, there is so much more, but that is just a sample of the problem.
Either fluoride is regulated under drug laws or poison laws. Which do you prefer?
LikeLike
Stuart, I have often thought that one reason for the improvement in oral health over time – as measure by dmft – could be changes in dental practice. I have often heard the story how in our youth dental nurses would insert fillings which later were considered unnecessary.
LikeLike
Bill, is iodine in salt regulated as a drug?
LikeLike
Richard,
You have asked about the four most controversial issues in dentistry and I would love to, but Ken has asked us to focus on the subject at hand. I think we need to respect Ken’s request. You can contact me privately at bill@teachingsmiles.com
LikeLike
Richard, you asked about iodine. Good question and I’m not an expert on iodine.
I do know that fluoride decreases thyroid function contributing to goiter and increased iodine reduces goiter. So the more fluoride ingested, the more iodine is required. Reduce fluoride exposure and iodine intake needs to decrease.
Second, iodine is not classified as highly toxic (less than 50 mg/kg causing death) and does not need to be regulated as a poison, pesticide or drug.
Third, iodine has been show to be used physiologically as a component of thyroid hormones. Therefore, thyroid is an essential mineral/nutrient and fluoride is not.
Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate fluoride ingestion, like scurvy is the result of inadequate Vit. C.
LikeLike
Bill,
The FDA and the EPA are federal regulatory agencies. They are not bound by opinions, they are bound by federal statutes. Regardless of your personal opinion that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a drug or medication and therefore under the authority of the FDA, federal statutes deem different. The courts have upheld this each and every time that fluoride opponents have attempted it.
From the ADA “Fluoridation Facts”:
“On June 22, 1979, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify their roles and responsibilities in water quality assurance. The stated purpose of the MOU is to “avoid the possibility of overlapping
jurisdiction between the EPA and FDA with respect to control of drinking water additives. The two agencies agreed that the SDWA’s [Safe Drinking Water Act] passage in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s jurisdiction over drinking water as a ‘food’ under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Under the agreement, EPA enjoys exclusive regulatory authority over drinking water served by public water supplies, including any additives in such water. FDA retains jurisdiction over bottled drinking water under Section 410 of the FFDCA and over water (and substances in
water) used in food or food processing once it enters the food processing establishment.”
——44 Fed.Reg. 42775-78 (July 20, 1979).
——http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Just like tobacco in the 1970′s when I was in my Master’s of Public Health and DDS education, seemed to have significant scientific strength raising concerns of harm.
“Seemed”?
Either there was or there was not. There is no “seemed”.
(Hint: Science writes stuff down. In science journals. It doesn’t get lost. It’s possible to check these things and know for sure. Historians of science can tell you when smoking was known by the scientific community to be dangerous.)
Yet tobacco smoking was done in my hospital, airplane, restaurant, and promoted by the dentist who’s practice I took over.
Meaning what exactly?
Smoking does indeed cause cancer. That’s been known for a very long time. Well before the 70’s.
There was however a very slick, expensive and (fatally) very successful disinformation campaign to make common folk think it was all undecided and too tough to understand.
And some scientists still feel the research of tobacco’s harm is not convincing.
“Some scientists”, eh?
Let me tell you a little something about “some scientists”.
Some scientists still feel the research of evolution is not convincing.
(nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
Some scientists still feel the research of HIV is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of the efficacy of vaccines is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of anthropogenic climate change is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of the supposed dangers of DDT is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of evolution is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of germ theory is not convincing.
etc
etc
etc
It’s a very long list. Very long.
A golden oldie of science deniers of every type.
American Cancer Society is just now working on a new large study to determine whether tobacco causes cancer.
Oh really? They just woke up the other day and went “Gosh, does tobacco cause cancer? Hmm, Tough one. Beats us. Maybe we should get a study running to look at this cutting-edge hunch of ours.”
No.
The American Cancer Society (along with all the medical communities on the planet) knows perfectly well that smoking is a bloody stupid thing to do and it kills people.
In my judgment we have enough science to be reasonably certain tobacco is not healthy.
How magnanimous of you to go that extra mile and kinda sorta in a very foot-dragging way go with the scientific consensus.
Let’s not rush things shall we?
After all there’s still more research needed. Let’s reconvene in a few decades more. After all, the record shows that scientists disagee. Why there’s even a nice man on the telly helpfully informing you about all the doubt.
tobacco_papers
LikeLike
I don’t buy your argument Bill.
Water fluoridation is an adjustment of concentration of natural occurring trace element, or chemical if you prefer, in water supplies to a level optimal for community and individual health. As such, it is not medication unless the term is intentionally stretched.
As in many areas of life there are grey areas, all you have highlighted are ambiguities in definition and jurisdiction. I would bet my lunch that it was not the intent of those who drafted the regulations, that you have raised, to define community water fluoridation as being mass medication of a drug subject to the FDA.
Happily, definitions and regulations are arbitrary and can be changed.
I would hope that if anti fluoridationists do, for some reason, make headway through the backdoor of pedantic definitions, then lawmakers will move to remove any ambiguities. S Slott indicates that moves to define fluoridation as medication have so far been struck down by the courts.
LikeLike
Stuart, your question is one I’ve been struggling with for a long time. I wish I could post graphs here to shed light on your excellent question, but I can’t.
In 1930 the average 12 year old had about 12 cavities. When fluoridation started significantly in the USA population (ramped up), (mid 1960’s) and could start to show national effect, the 12 year old cavity rate was about 5.5/child. Fluoride toothpaste took hold nationally in the early 1970’s.
The question is, what caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation? Could it have been year round transportation of fresh fruits and veggies nation wide? Or as you ask Stuart could it have been:
“1. Education.
2. Diet change including in better educated communities an acknowledgement of the effects of free sugar.
3. Reduction in smoking.
4. Promotion of healthy lifestyles and the “glamorisation” of beautiful teeth by Hollywood et al.
5. The use of fluoride tablets in some communities prior to fluoridated water supplies.”
My answer is, I don’t know. Could have been a combination of those and antibiotics, or ????
Remember, not one single fluoridation study has controlled for that huge confounding factor(s) which are unknowns. About 5 cavity reduction in about 30 years and we don’t know what it was. We don’t know if those confounding factors are the reason the rest of the developed world, most without fluoridation, fluoride salt or fluoride supplants, reduced their cavities to the same rate as the USA. We don’t know.
In other words, world wide decay reduction regardless of fluoride exposure.
Research now claims about half a tooth surface reduction in dental caries when we don’t have a clue what caused 5.5 fewer cavity reductions.
Doctors, my professions of public health and dentistry should have serious concerns about the lack of scientific studies answering fundamental questions on the efficacy, safety and dosage of fluoride exposure.
My most serious detractors are not dentists and scientists but those who speak up with wild conspiracy theories. In fact, I wish the public health blunder were a conspiracy because at least my professions would have an excuse for our lack of scientific rigor.
LikeLike
Ken. I notice Dr. Bill DDS quotes among other things the official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States for a definition of “drug”. This rang alarm bells. I have noticed the source of fluoride features significantly among the antis. I have wondered about that. Homeopaths believe in chemical memory of course and presumeably F- ions remember they were once a fluorosilicate a rodent poison. Never mind that silica by itself is benign being approximately 70% of the Earth’s crust and exposed to us in various forms for millions of years.
I also noticed Dr. John Callett is active in these and other fringe health industries such as a cure all Vit D. I wondered if there is a connection and I think there is.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?site=&source=hp&ei=svyXUvXeHeSdiQLHloCoBg&q=dr.+john+cannell+and+dr+bill+osmunson&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.41l3.0.0.0.3246.1.0.0.1.1.0.0.0..0.0….0…1c..32.mobile-gws-hp..0.1.62.LUYs6Y0meiA
Perhaps that’s why Dr. Bill didn’t respond to my remarks about John Yiamouyiannis and his pursuit of alternative treatments such as Laetrile and Vitamins for his colonarectal cancer.
The link of course is the huge lucrative alternative (non scientific) therapy industry in the US.
My god! Once you visit the u tube lectures around this area you feel you have just peeked into a Victorian lunatic asylum. Either that or a Mississippi paddle steamer circa 1900!
I don’t think I’ll address or respond to Dr Bill DDS again (except in the third person). I noticed he expertly avoided referencing sources for the non F- reduction in caries. The kind of controlled experiment he is suggesting would never happen on ethical and practical grounds. You would never satisfy his criteria and he knows it.
But you and I know that valid comparisons can be made epidemiologically using sizeable subject populations relatively close geographically and socioeconomicaly especially multiple studies that reduces the significance of confounding variables to an insignificant level.
Once I discover correspondents have a concealed “other” that has skin in the games I lose interest in even polite discourse.
Stu.
LikeLike
Ken and others. The link I gave you to the weird land of American alternative therapies. Take care! It includes explicit porn sites! Surprise surprise! We are talking about a culture where anything goes if there’s a buck in it.
LikeLike
Steve,
The short answer is that EPA terminated the MOU in 1988.
Here are more details.
In 1988, EPA published in the Federal Register a “Notice” that it was terminating its commitment to FDA to create a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (53 FR 25586-89) In this 1988 Notice EPA admitted that it “does not currently regulate the levels of additives in drinking water.” It explained that the “SDWA does not require EPA to control the use of specific additives in drinking water.” It states,
I appreciate and fully agree that the FDA is under Federal law, FD&C Act. And the FDA to Congress testified that fluoride when used for the prevention of diseases is a drug, not a nutrient.
If fluoride were a nutrient, go to the pharmacy and ask for fluoride to swallow. The pharmacist will require an Rx. Why? because it is an unapproved drug. Ask the pharmacist to check with the FDA. Many pharmacies have stopped carrying fluoride because it is an unapproved drug.
Read our fluoride toothpaste label. It is approved and says “Drug Facts.” Why? Because the FDA says it is a drug. And the FDA requires on the approved label, “do not swallow.” The reference is to a quarter milligram of fluoride, the same amount of fluoride as in one glass of fluoridated water.
You have given a citation of the ADA to refute the FD&C Act. The ADA references an historical agreement between the FDA and EPA which has long since been abandoned. Please remember that the American Dental Association is not a Federal Agency and simply a group of like minded Dentists. The ADA testified in court that they had no duty to protect the public, they simply gave out information. As such, the ADA in their effort to support fluoridation failed to read all aspects of the MOU between the FDA and EPA.
In 1979, the EPA and FDA entered into an MOU where the FDA agreed not to enforce its food authority over public drinking water in exchange for EPA creating a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (CP 224-31) In the FFDCA, Congress gave FDA authority to regulate foods to ensure they are “safe” (21. U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(A)) and drugs to ensure they are “safe and effective” (21. U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B)). Normally for drinking water, only food regulations would be applicable and prior to 1979, the FDA generally regulated drinking water as a food. (CP224.) But after passage of the SDWA, EPA and FDA were concerned that FDA’s “food” authority and EPA’s “public drinking water” authority might result in “duplicative and inconsistent regulations” so they entered an MOU. In the MOU, FDA agreed not to use its “food” authority to regulate public drinking water, based on a commitment that EPA would adopt regulations to control additives in public drinking water.
There is no mention in the MOU that FDA would, or could, give up its “drug” authority over public drinking water and public drinking water additives. Congress required “drugs” to be “effective” (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B)) and Congress never gave EPA authority to regulate drug effectiveness. The MOU inartfully states;
[EPA and FDA] have determined that the passage of the SDWA in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s authority under the FFDCA over water used for drinking water purposes.
Read in context with the other provisions of the MOU this can only possibly be true with respect to FDA’s “food” authority and cannot be true with respect to FDA’s “drug” authority (CP 224-5; See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 474 U.S. 361, 368, 106 S.Ct. 681, 88 L. Ed.2d 691 (1986) (“agency interpretation” cannot “alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.”))
In a subsequent section, the MOU states;
[EPA and FDA] agreed that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s passage in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s jurisdiction over drinking water as a “food” under the [FFDCA].
Thus the MOU itself clarifies that the MOU only impacts FDA’s “food” regulations. The MOU states:
Under the agreement, EPA now retains exclusive jurisdiction over drinking water served by public water supplies, including any additives in such water.
In context, EPA does not have exclusive jurisdiction when public drinking water, including any additives in such waters, are “drugs” because Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction over drugs to the FDA. (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 126, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000).) Congress has clearly defined “drugs in 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1). Further EPA claims no authority that would give it jurisdiction over the determination of “effectiveness” of drugs.
In 1988, EPA published in the Federal Register a “Notice” that it was terminating its commitment to FDA to create a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (53 FR 25586-89) In this 1988 Notice EPA admitted that it “does not currently regulate the levels of additives in drinking water.” It explained that the “SDWA does not require EPA to control the use of specific additives in drinking water.” It states, (see appendix )
Resource constraints and the need to implement mandatory provisions of the SDWA precluded the Agency from implementing the comprehensive program originally envisioned. . .
Steve, your comment is seriously pertinent. Stick with me and don’t skip over this. If you want a copy of the MOU, let me know and I can forward one to you.
1. The MOU relates to water as a food and the word food is used several times. The MOU does not mention the word fluoride.
2. Have you contacted the FDA CDER for FOI? I have several times. The FDA CDER agrees they have jurisdiction and are “deferring regulatory action.”
3. The Federal Safe Drinking water act prohibits the EPA from adding anything to water for the prevention of disease.
42 USC 300g-1(b)(11) states:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”
Steve, hang in there with me. Don’t skip over this. For greater clarification, I contacted the EPA with FOI and EPA responded:
“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water. Decisions on whether or not to fluoridate drinking water are made at a state or local level.”
4. The EPA Could Not Enter Into an MOU54 With the FDA Which Requires the EPA to Violate the SDWA. If the EPA Did, Then the MOU is Invalid.
The MOU Relates to Food and NOT the Addition of Fluoride to Water With the Intent to Prevent Disease, Drugs.
5. The EPA presented to Congress:
“To answer your first question of whether we have in our possession any empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, the answer is no.”
6. The EPA professionals have been brutally concise, clear and ethical: “In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”
The EPA scientists testified in court, “. . . NFFE believes that serious errors were made by the Agency in setting the
fluoride RMCL . . . the Agency deliberately chose not to base its decision on relevant expertise. . . . The process by which EPA arrived at the RMCL for fluoride is scientifically irrational and displays an unprofessional review of relevant scientific data.”
Hang in there Steve, we still have more. The EPA scientists advised the Court:
“Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940’s and 1950’s as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer
manufacture as, “…an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of
fluoride…”
7. Drug regulation in the US began in 1736. As early as 1848, the US began limited drug regulation. Congress adopted more comprehensive drug statutes in the Food and Drug Act of 1906, which prohibited the manufacturer of any drug that was “adulterated or misbranded.” This Act defined “drug” as:
“All medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animals;”
In 1912 Congress amended the Act to prevent false claims. In 1938 Congress amended the Act to require FDA approval for new drug application (NDA) to demonstrate a drug was safe BEFORE entering the market.
In 1951 (Durham-Humphrey Amendment) Congress explicitly defined two classes of medications, prescription and over-the-counter (OTC). In response, the FDA adopted a regulation stating:
i. The program for fluoridation of public water supplies recommended by the Federal Security Agency, through the Public Health Service, contemplates the controlled addition of fluorine at a level optimum for the prevention of dental caries.
ii. Public water supplies do not ordinarily come under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. . .
iii. The Federal Security Agency will regard water supplies containing fluorine, within the limitations recommended by the Public Health Service, as not actionable under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
And it was published as amended in 1995.
In 1996 the FDA reversed its position to not enforce the FFDCA regarding fluoridated water after the EPA/FDA MOU was terminated and after Congress adopted the DSHEA that defined minerals as drugs if used to prevent specific diseases. In 1996, the FDA determined that its 1952 regulation was obsolete or no longer necessary and the regulation was revoked. (61 FR 29476) The revocation of 212 CFR 250.203 occurred after the EPA announced the “Termination of the Federal Drinking Water Additive Program” effective April 7, 1990. (53 FR 25586-89; CP 142-45) The purpose of a 1979 MOU between FDA and EPA was having EPA operate the federal drinking water additive program. (44FR 42775-78; CP 224-31.) EPA’s announcement of termination of its additive program was effective notice to FDA that the 1979 MOU was terminated. (53 FR 42776, CP 225 “This [MOU] shall continue in effect unless . . . terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other.”)
The revocation of 21 CFR 250.203 also occurred after the adoption by Congress of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-417; “DSHEA”). This 1994 Act of Congress clarified Congressional intent that minerals including fluoride are drugs if the intended use is to prevent disease.
A dietary supplement is deemed to be “food,” [21 U.S.C.] 321 (ff), which is defined in part as “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals,” Id. 321(f)(1), except when it meets the definition of a “drug,” which is defined in part as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.”
(Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 714 F. Supp.2d 48, 50 (D.D.C. 2010).)
Under the DSHEA, dietary supplements include minerals. (21 U.S.C.321(ff)(1)(B)) In adopting the DSHEA, Congress clarified its intent that fluoride mineral when used to prevent disease is a drug under federal law. The Commissioner of the FDA now concurs.
In 1962 Congress amended the FFDCA standard for approval of a NDA or ANDA from “safe” to “safe and effective” for the intended use. (Samuels at 545.) For drugs with approved NDAs under the 1938 Act to retain these NDAs, they were required to demonstrate they were effective. (Id.; Weinberger v. Hynson, Wescott & Dunning, Inc, 412 U.S. 609, 612-15, 93 S.Ct. 2469, 37 L.Ed.2d 207 (1973).)
In 1972, the FDA established a new approval process for non-prescription drugs. (21 CFR Part 330.) This process resulted in the establishment of over-the-counter monographs for various drug classifications including a monograph for anticaries drug products that do not require prescription. (21 CFR Part 355.) This final rule, as amended, provides that all OTC anticaries drug products introduced to the Market after April, 1997 must comply with general conditions in 21 CFR 330.1 and with anticaries monograph conditions in 21 CFR Part 355; otherwise a NDA or ANDA is required.
On or after [April 7, 1997] no OTC drug product that is subject to the monograph and that contains a non-monograph condition . . . may be initially introduced. . . into interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an approved application or abbreviated application.
Also, FDA regulations provide that any anticaries drug that includes hydrogen fluoride requires an NDA. (21 CFR 310.545(a)(2) and (b).)
Once again, federal law is clear “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means
(A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
(B) articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease in man or other animals;”
Sodium Fluoride is listed in the 2007 US Pharmacopoeia pages 3194-3196. Congress, the President, the Oregon Legislature and Governor have clearly defined drugs, and fluoride is listed as a drug and the intent of adding/formulating fluoride with water is to prevent dental disease. The intent of use makes fluoride a drug regardless of whether it is a placebo or hoax. Although the addition of fluoride has been tossed like a hot potato between agencies, currently the FDA CDER has jurisdiction of substances used with the intent to prevent disease even if they are mixed in public water.
As early as 1916, the federal Supreme Court concurred that products that were otherwise defined as “foods” would be “drugs” under federal statute when labeling for the substance includes statements of therapeutic or preventative effect. (Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U.S. 510, 513-14, 36 S.Ct. 190, 60 L.Ed. 411 (1016).) And after the 1938 Act again concurred that “food products” will be “drugs” based on “labeling.” (Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 346, 69 S.Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed. 52 (1948).) In 1969, the federal Supreme Court, in finding a product was a drug, explained,
Congress intended to define “drug” [in 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B)] far more broadly than does the medical profession…. The word “drug” is a term of art for the purposes of the Act, encompassing far more than the strict medical definition of that word.
(United States v. An Articl of Drug …Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784, 793, 89 S.Ct. 1410, 22 L.Ed.2d 726 (1969).) The Bacto-Unidisk Court
LikeLike
Stuart,
I am quoting the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. That is USA Federal law, not my choice.
If that leads you to a porn site, then you need to contact your Senator.
LikeLike
Ken,
Stuart is gone crazy of the subject. If he has a problem with the FD&C Act that has science, or if he has problems with science, then he needs to talk about science and not jump all over the place regarding cancer treatments and knocking people.
I just demonstrated that the ADA has an obsolete reference. But that does not mean all their references are bogus.
Thank you for getting Stuart back on the subject.
LikeLike
Ken. Valid comparisons can’t really be made between populations greatly seperated by space and time can they?
Presumeably changes in diet, for example the marketing of coke on a global scale would affect valid comparisons before and after WWII?
American servicemen inadvertently promoted Camel cigarettes and Coke.
I remain convinced that local studies of adjacent populations are the best guidelines. I notice some of the antis in NZ are fond of quoting precedents in Europe and elsewhere with absolutely no consideration of other mitigating factors ie cultural and other regulatory factors.
LikeLike
how many angels on the pin?
LikeLike
Bill, I asked a simple question becuase you had implied that regulations described fluoride, when used to top up natural lecels in water to an acceptable concentration, as a drug.
My question was:
Now, I have had a sleep before tackling your answer and my refreshed mind is still not convinced by it. No wonder people who make this sort of point end up involving lawyers (and even then don’t seem to none able to convince most people). This question is currently before the high court in NZ – in action brought by an astroturf “health” organisation. They will lose, but of course appeal to drag out the issue for several years. Meanwhile giving local politicians and excuse to ignore the declared will of the voters.
Really dishonest and undemocratic – no wonder people are getting angry with these activist organisations and their bullying behaviour.
In my first article in this exchange I called Paul’s use of the drug argument a classical bait and switch fallacy. He and you are using a definition of “drug” so loose as the capture F (and inevitably the minerals like Ca and PO4) in water as a drug. Then switching to a narrow definition that requires informed consent and might cover something like a dental treatment contains f! but not drinking water.
I am not impressed by such arguments which involve a circuitous wandering around regulations, assumptions and definitions to arrive at a preordained conclusion.
LikeLike
Ken.
As far as I’m aware no one got me back on the subject because I never really left it. Crazy or not I can recognise a flim flam operator when I see one!
http://www.holisticsurvival.com/dr-bill-osmunson-fluoridation-mental-incapacity/
LikeLike
Ken, it was a Herald journalist who called it an “health” organisation, surprise surprise! An excellent example of the use/mention confusion.
LikeLike
The organisation is, I think, the NZ Health trust. I think it may have been set up for financial reasons to protect activists from consequences of legal actions.
Scanning their material they are in to things like chemtrails. I have been amazed at the proportion of local anti-fluoride activists, especially the leaders, who are also active on things like chemtrails, anti-vaccinations, homeopathy, alternative medications and supplements, kinesiology, conspiracies about Agenda 21 and population control, etc. in fact, it is not hard to get them diverted onto such subjects.
I think journalists should not stop at calling them a “health” organisation – readers should have the opportunity to see what they are really about and draw their own conclusions.
LikeLike
It gets worse, Amy Adams, now a crown minister, was at one stage a spokesperson for this nest of kooks.
Get Informed ……….
Click here and Watch this 12min interview with NZHT spokeswoman Amy Adams. Read more about what the NZHT is doing for our freedom of health choices by clicking on the menu options.
http://www.nzhealthtrust.co.nz/index_anztpa.html
LikeLike
Don’t be surprised Ken it’s the subject not the object that is flawed. Bigots are the same. They have a host of bete noirs. Some people see demons everywhere.
LikeLike
NZHT! Interesting! Their bottled packaged products are natural but fluoride isn’t. Didn’t these people argue against folic acid in bread? It’s a turf war isn’t it?
LikeLike
Didn’t these people argue against folic acid in bread?
Dunno but ex minister Katherine Rich was the spin doctor for some group against the stuff. at the time I remember thinking her reasoning was outrightly dishonest.
Science denial seems to get a sympathetic ear with National Party pollies.
LikeLike
She would be representing the interests grocery retailers wouldn’t she? Her father Dr. Jock Allison, retired agricultural scientist is a climate change denier.
LikeLike
Here
“There are few data from which to estimate total exposure to and
the bioavailability of fluoride, and there are inconsistencies in reports
on the characterization of its adverse effects.
There is clear evidence from India and China that skeletal fluorosis
and an increased risk of bone fractures occur at a total intake of 14 mg
fluoride/day and evidence suggestive of an increased risk of bone
effects at total intakes above about 6 mg fluoride/day.
Excess exposure to bioavailable fluoride constitutes a risk to
aquatic and terrestrial biota.
Fluoride-sensitive species can be used as sentinels for the identification
of fluoride hazards to the environment.
There is a need to improve knowledge on the accumulation of
fluoride in organisms and on how to monitor and control this.
The biological effects associated with fluoride exposure should be
better characterized.”
From WHO_EHC_227
There is much more in the report you can read some for & some against
It would appear we certainly have toxicity to at least the bone structure above above 6mg fluoride which almost halves the CDC recommendation of 10 mg per day scary isn’t it. Both supposedly reading current literature.
Even if you take the view damage up to 10mg/day is cosmetic a safety factor of 4mg/day doesn’t constituent a very good safety margin
LikeLike
Ian, when you quote reports like this could you please provide identification and reference information. Preferably a link.
When commenter don’t do this the claims look false, so it is their own interest to back up claims with workable references. And it is disrespectful to others here not to.
LikeLike
Shellfish naturally accumulate fluoride which is quite likely why Pacific people were reported by early European explorers as having excellent teeth.
This simply proves fluoride is not a hazard or toxin at appropriate concentrations.
LikeLike
Bill,
In fairness, I will check into the information you have provided in regard to EPA regulatory authority over fluoride at the optimal level, but it still appears that you are predicating it all upon your own opinion that fluoride at this level is a drug. It is not, as the courts have upheld. It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which already exists in water. The EPA has full regulatory authority over all such water additives.
The reason fluoride requires a prescription at the pharmacy is not because is has not been FDA approved. That would make no sense. No, the reason is to place responsibility on the provider to ensure that the fluoride supplement in addition to the patient’s primary water source, does not cause an overexposure to fluoride. This ensures as best as possible that patient’s primary water source has been evaluated for fluoride concentration prior to their being given supplements. Requiring prescriptions for fluoride supplements simply allows the same precaution against overexposure as does water fluoridation. Prior to fluoridating any system, that system must be evaluated for the concentration of existing fluoride.
My cite of the ADA was not meant to use the ADA as an authoritative source on water additive regulations, it was simply given to provide the source of the quote I inserted. The statutes and regulations are readily available as a matter of public record.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian
Skeletal fluorosis is not an issue with water fluoridation. The United States is 73% fluoridated.
“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.”
——http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/request&response/1d.shtml
Adverse effects on the environment are not an issue with water fluoridation.
“Fluoridated water losses during use, dilution of sewage by rain and groundwater infiltrate, fluoride removal during secondary sewage treatment, and diffusion dynamics at effluent outfall combine to eliminate fluoridation related environmental effects. In a literature review, Osterman found no instance of municipal water fluoridation causing recommended environmental concentrations to be exceeded, although excesses occurred in several cases of severe industrial water pollution not related to water fluoridation. Osterman found that overall river fluoride concentrations theoretically would be raised by 0.001-0.002 mg/l, a value not measurable by current analytic techniques. All resulting concentrations would be well below those recommended for environmental safety.”
—–Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States
Howard F. Pollick, BDS, MPH
Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343–350
—-Osterman JW. Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment. Am J Public Health. 1990; 80:1230-5.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Good Morning Ken,
Two of your questions.
First: FDA CDER. Several parts to your question. But first the answers need to be framed with an understanding of drug regulatory agencies. The manufacturers seek approval, not the agency looking for manufacturers to regulate. The manufacturer must seek approval prior to marketing. Regulation after the product is being sold does not protect the public. Drugs must be approved prior to marketing. I have personally made application to the FDA for a dental device and received approval. The process for devices is reasonable. For drugs, the process costs about $3/4 of a million dollars for the application and that does not include all the necessary research to support the application. Very expensive. Fees can be waved with application and prior to marketing, approval is required.
Drug Digest 1975, “The FDA has addressed a ”regulatory letter” to approximately 35 companies marketing combination drugs consisting of fluoride and vitamins. The letter states that these drugs are related to a product (Ernziflur lozenges) for which FDA has withdrawn approval of a new drug application. The NDA for Enziflur was withdrawn because there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling.”
Because FDA has withdrawn approval for fluoride supplements, water districts do not want to rock the ship by making application for approval. If denied, the FDA would or should send regulatory letters to all the other water districts.
It is the obligation of those selling the drug to gain approval. The FDA CDER says ((about 2010 Pharmacy Letters) there are thousands of unapproved drugs on the market. They are doing incentives for manufacturers to gain approval, but they have a long way to go and falling behind.
Specifically to your question, the FDA CDER has approved fluoride toothpaste with variable wording on the label, but not fluoride varnish or fluoride supplements. Ken, you are correct with a concern that fluoride varnish is an unapproved drug. When a manufacturer chooses not to gain FDA approval, they set up a sister company and sell the unapproved drug directly to doctors so the doctor has greater liability.
You have asked for a specific quote, I presume position statement, on the FDA CDER. Approval is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the patient or public. The FDA CDER is very clear. The intent of use, by the public perception, claims on the internet, manufacturer marketing or other places is the basis of whether a product is a drug or not. Makes no difference if the substance is a placebo and no claim of benefit is made. In the USA you can go to many health food stores like Whole Foods and they have a “supplement section.” Read the labels and wording of what the supplement treats is not on the bottle. A sales person will help you for the right potent for your ills or fears, but the manufacturer is very careful. You can look in a book at the end of the isle for help. Some wording such as “supports heart health” has been approved.
Second: “topping up natural fluoride concentrations in water.”
As I explained earlier, the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to treat water and prohibits the EPA from treating people. It makes no difference whether the water district is adding a placebo or hocus pocus, the “INTENT” of adding the substance to the water makes fluoride a drug. Better a drug than a poison. Based on laws, either fluoride is regulated as a poison or drug. Take your pick. Once the “intent” is determined, the regulatory agency needs to be contacted for approval.
If “topping up” were an exception to drug laws then the manufacturer should have a letter or notice that they are exempt.
Lithium could be added to “top up” concentration, a substance to help many have better moods. With more time and patients on Lithium, we now understand more side effects and that option has been pulled off the table.
Viagra is another option for water districts to “top” up. Think of all the people who would move to that water district!!!
Penicillin is naturally occurring and could also be “topped up” and help prevent infections.
None of those are legal without the proper regulatory agency’s approval.
LikeLike
Ken,
You have raised several excellent points.
Further to your comment: “In my first article in this exchange I called Paul’s use of the drug argument a classical bait and switch fallacy. He and you are using a definition of “drug” so loose as the capture F (and inevitably the minerals like Ca and PO4) in water as a drug. Then switching to a narrow definition that requires informed consent and might cover something like a dental treatment contains f! but not drinking water.”
Read FDA CDER drug approval guidance documents, the FDA CDER is very specific and uses several illustrations to explain the definition of drugs, cosmetics, and foods.
Why are Ca and PO4 not drugs?
First, they are not toxic at 50 mg/Kg of BW and fluoride is toxic and regulated as a highly toxic substance. (Also remember that CaF is about 70 times less toxic than NaF).
Second Ca and PO4 are required for physiologic function. In other words, no Ca in the diet and the body dies. The lack or absence of fluoride in the diet does not cause any disease, as illustrated by mother’s milk.
LikeLike
Ken,
You suggest I am trying to use a narrow definition or wide definition and not following regulations.
I have given you Federal laws under which all in the USA must follow. If there is one area of law which is reasonably well fleshed out, it is drug laws and water laws.
I am consistent with my definitions. Please read my posts again. The definition I am using is based on Federal and State Laws which are similar in all countries. Would you like me to get you the NZ laws? USA FDA CDER guidance documents give further guidance. Took me years to switch my position from pro-fluoride to fluoride free water. Not easy to admit I had only looked at one side of the research and only followed the ADA instead of looking at the laws and science for myself.
LikeLike
Ken,
I believe you live in New Zealand, correct?
Terms are slightly different. Instead of the term “drug” you use “medicine.” Looking at all applicable laws takes time. A good start would be two places, http://www.medsafe.govt.nz
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0118/latest/whole.html#DLM54687
Most government agencies when contacted, need very specific questions and repeated questions. This is a complex issue. And always get responses in writing. Your 1981 Medicine law states:
“Meaning of medicine, new medicine, prescription medicine, and restricted medicine
(1) Subject to subsection (2), in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term medicine means any substance or article, other than a medical device, that is manufactured, imported, sold, or supplied wholly or principally—
(a) for administering to 1 or more human beings for a therapeutic purpose; or . . . . ”
Is fluoride formulated with water for the purpose of treating water to make it safe to drink or for therapeutic purposes?
LikeLike
Hi Steve, I trust you had a good day of Gratitude and Thanksgiving.
A few comments to your post. Your comments in quotations.
Steve: “In fairness, I will check into the information you have provided in regard to EPA regulatory authority over fluoride at the optimal level, but it still appears that you are predicating it all upon your own opinion that fluoride at this level is a drug.”
Bill: the EPA does not use the term optimal level for fluoride because there is no optimal level above zero for toxicants. EPA uses the term “Contaminant” for fluoride. Contaminants are not desired.
Steve: “It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which already exists in water.”
Bill: My understanding is NaF (and HFS) is toxic at about 5 to 15 mg/kg BW whereas naturally occurring CaF is toxic at about 700 mg/kg BW. The difference is substantial and the two substances are not identical. CaF is not very soluble.
Steve: “The EPA has full regulatory authority over all such water additives.”
Bill: Yes, if the intent is to treat water. If the intent is to formulate a therapeutic substance, a drug or medicine, then the FDA CDER has regulatory authority. In other words, you and I cannot dilute our Crack with public water and call it an additive and under EPA authority.
Steve: “The reason fluoride requires a prescription at the pharmacy is not because is has not been FDA approved. That would make no sense.”
Bill: Look up fluoride on the approved drug data base of the FDA. Easy search. I’ve done it several times and my pharmacist did it in about 30 seconds. After seeing it was not approved he pulled it from the shelf. It is legal for a pharmacist to sell unapproved drugs, but FDA is cracking down on them so they are pulling the unapproved drugs off their shelves. Even in time of war, a person cannot be given an approved drug for an unapproved purpose without their consent.
Steve: “No, the reason is to place responsibility on the provider to ensure that the fluoride supplement in addition to the patient’s primary water source, does not cause an overexposure to fluoride.”
Bill: Steve, two points. First, the doctor can prescribe anything they want in any quantity they want and the doctor is liable for adverse effects. Still illegal for the manufacturer, but FDA has bigger fish to fry. Second, you make an excellent consideration, dosage. Some people drink almost no water and others drink as much as 11 liters a day. Lets think through your valid concern. Assume one person drinks 1 liter/day at 1 ppm. Adding a supplement of 0.5 mg would, according to your (and my) concern be a 50% increase (excess) and perhaps an over dose at 1.5 mg/day of fluoride. Are you concerned about 1.5 mg/day of fluoride to be excessive? I am for infants, children, and some with compromised kidney thyroid or absorption concerns. Well, if you and I are concerned about 1.5 mg/day, then 11 liters at 1 ppm or 11 mg/day of fluoride should give us serious pause for concern.
Steve: “Requiring prescriptions for fluoride supplements simply allows the same precaution against overexposure as does water fluoridation.”
Bill: Please explain. I don’t understand how water fluoridation when people drink vastly different quantities of water is any protection against overexposure.
Thanks,
LikeLike
Sorry, Bill, but you are still predicating your arguments on your own personal opinion that fluoride at the optimal level is a drug. You can certainly try to make that argument in court as have other fluoridation opponents, but the courts have rejected it each and every time.
In regard to NaF and CaF being different from that added with fluoridation, yes, that argument is frequently attempted by fluoridation opponents. I’m surprised that you attempt it, however, as you seem far more informed than to make that mistake. The fact is that the only products of HFA hydrolysis are fluoride ions and trace heavy metal contaminants. The fluoride ions are identical to those which exist in water “naturally” as released from CaF, and those released from NaF, or any other source. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of its source. The trace contaminants are in such miniscule amounts that they fall far short of EPA mandated maximums (MCL) and EPA mandated NSF Standard 60 certification requirements. The most prevalent of these contaminants is arsenic. The amount of arsenic detected in NSF testing has been only 0.6 parts per billion, or 60% of the NSF certification maximum which is only 10 % of the EPA. MCL for arsenic. The other contaminants are in even more miniscule amounts and fall even farther short of NSF allowed maximums under Standard 60. Certainly you may attempt to argue your own opinion as to what should be allowable maximums, if you want, but you would be arguing against the stringent safety controls set by respected regulatory bodies of the U.S. government. Sixty eight years worth of experience with fluoridation has not shown any proof of these controls being inadequate.
Your obsession with FDA approval of fluoride is moot. The FDA has no authority or jurisdiction over mineral additives to water. There is no requirement or need for FDA approval of fluoride at 0.7 ppm added to water. My statement that your argument made no sense was in regard to your erroneous claim that the reason fluoride requires a prescription is because it is not FDA approved. Your reason is what would make no sense. My explanation of the reason for prescription of fluoride supplements is self explanatory in my previous comment.
Once again, as 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 regulations. It should be noted that the FDA does not have the authority to approve many of the products we use every day.”
—-http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_quiz.html.
I have no idea why you would prescribe 0.5 mg fluoride supplement to an individual whose primary water supply already has a fluoride content of 1 ppm. This is exactly my point. Requiring prescription for fluoride supplements ascribes responsibility to the prescriber to evaluate the patient’s primary water source for fluoride content before any additional is given. In the case of your patient who drinks one liter of water fluoridated at 1 ppm, there would be no need to give him a fluoride supplement.
Anyone who drinks 11 liters of water per day had best be concerned about water toxicity, not fluoride. My statement was that water fluoridation accords the same safety precaution against overexposure as does requiring a prescription. Both require existing levels of fluoride in the primary water supply be evaluated prior to the addition of more fluoride either through fluoridation or supplements.
The broad range between fluoride at the optimal level and the IOM established upper level before adverse effects, easily allows for differences in water consumption. Even your water toxic fellow who consumes 11 liters of water per day would only be ingesting 7.7 mg of fluoride. That excessive amount of water consumption would most certainly be at the upper range of the CDC estimate for total intake, i.e. 75 % from the water. So, even this fellow would only be consuming 10.26 mg of fluoride from all sources daily, assuming there is anyone who drinks this ridiculous amount and survives. Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for such excessive behavior, anyway.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steve,
You suggested skeletal fluorosis is not an issue with water fluoridation. Don’t brush that concern into the dust bin just yet, NRC 2006 did not.
Several serious problems. First, some people drink a lot more water than others. Perhaps at 1 liter a day or 2 a day, but what about 11 liters of water a day? And what if they are also swallowing toothpaste or eating foods naturally high in fluoride or with fluoride pesticides or fluoride post harvest fumigants, etc?
Another huge problem is just like decay is not the same size or problem for each tooth, skeletal fluorosis is different for different people. In some areas of the world endemic skeletal fluorosis exists. As you can imagine, not everyone in those communities is all crippled up. So what are the early signs of skeletal fluorosis? Arthritic like symptoms and joint problems. Could excess fluoride ingestion cause arthritic like symptoms. Yes. Research is raising concerns that fluoride might contribute to our huge increases in arthritic like symptoms and joint problems. Definitive evidence? Yes, that fluoride can contribute. Certainly many other factors, just like white spots on the teeth are not all dental fluorosis.
And we have not touched several huge problems of research evaluation, total exposure, risks, and benefits.
Alarming to consider the magnitude of the research problem with fluoridation. Not one single prospective randomized controlled trial and so many variables and unknowns. In effect, we are discussion and have taken positions on a subject which we really have incomplete evidence.
Proponents will take poor or fair research and say it is good with gusto and confidence. Opponents will do the same for their research. Then each will rip the other person’s research apart finding serious flaws. In such debate, it is almost better to not have any research because the focus is on the flaws of the other person’s research. The best example of that is fluoride and the brain. Proponents have no research and so they pick at each hair on the elephant and fail to recognize the elephant.
For example,
1. Plotting the 50 US states on the percent of whole state population fluoridated and mental retardation reported in 1992.
As the percent of the populations on fluoridated water increases a tripling of mental retardation is found. Consistent with half a standard deviation drop in IQ, about 8 IQ points and consistent with Choi’ study from Harvard.
I can hear everyone say, “that’s impossible with water fluoridation at 1 ppm.” Well, water is only one source of fluoride. Yep. Looks like we just might have lower IQ with fluoridation. And proponents say, “poor study.” And I say, Yep, show me your better study. And proponents are silent. But silence is not proof of safety or harm. The question then must be asked, why not ask for FDA CDER opinion? Those are the best experts in the world at evaluating science. Proponents are silent. And then we start to discuss the flaws in the research rather than the elephant in the room which is a lack of USA studies on the effects of fluoridation on IQ. We don’t even look, and that is supposed to prove safety. Makes no sense to me.
2. “The effects of excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy on neonatal neurobehavioral development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. . . The results showed that the urinary fluoride levels of mothers from the high fluoride group were higher than those of the control group. There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score
between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological. Although development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. . . The
results showed that the urinary fluoride levels of mothers from the high fluoride group were higher than those of the control group. There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were
also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction between the two groups. It is concluded that fluoride is toxic to neurodevelopment and that excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy can cause adverse effects on neonatal neurobehavioral development.” For mother’s in the “high fluoride group the urinary fluoride level averaged 3.58±1.47 mg/L, .
. . the control group (1.74±0.96 mg/L)”
Li J, li Y, Shao QL, Wu CY, EFFECTS OF HIGH FLUORIDE LEVEL ON NEONATAL NEUROBEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, Fluoride April-June 2008, 41(2)165-170
[Translated by Bin Li and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Endemiology 2004 Sep;23(5):463-5.] Appendix 39 Full Article. Note: Subject wells 1.7- 6.0 mg F/L and control wells 0.5-1.0 mg F/L and subject urine samples were 3.58 mg F/L ±1.47 and controls 0.18-2.6 mg F/L statistically significant (p<0.01)
I can hear the proponents screaming, "that is from the Fluoride Journal and we won't accept that." My response is two things. First, it was published first by the Chinese in their peer reviewed journal. And second, show me USA research which reports safety. Only after you provide better research can we trash their research. Is that article proof? No but it is a nail in the coffin.
3. “This paper presents a systematic literature review conducted to
investigate whether fluoride exposure has increased the risk of low intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in China over the past 20 years. . . . Children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area.” SOURCE: Tang QQ, DuJ, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ,
Fluoride and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis, Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Winter: 126(1-3):115-20
Remember, the USA fluorosis has gone up to 40% of children and that is after redefining dental fluorosis. So look at the serum fluoride concentrations. Reasonable journal, reasonable study. Are we going to throw out all Chinese studies because of prejudice? Simply because they looked first while we in the USA sat smugly by claiming safe and effective because we refused to look ad study?
4. “We found that exposure to fluoride (F) in urine was associated
with reduced Performance, Verbal, and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounders. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable…. The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.” SOURCE: Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.
OK, lets rip this one apart. Increased fluoride in urine. Better than measuring water, but still we assume good kidney function.
5. “These negative correlations between IQ and urinary As and
between IQ and urinary fluoride indicate that exposure to high levels of As or fluoride, or both, could affect children’s intelligence… This study indicates that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with neurotoxic effects in children.” SOURCE: Wang SX, et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7.
Remember, the HFS acid added to water often contains some arsenic and increases lead in blood serum.
6. “In agreement with other studies elsewhere, these findings
indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence.” SOURCE: Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178-183.
7. In 2006, more than 20 of the human studies finding brain damage
with higher exposures of fluoride had not been published in English. The 2006 NRC Report said, “A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough
to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 6. Those studies of US populations have not been done.
OK, so we now have almost 8 years after the NRC called for more studies. Please provide the quality studies, you know, the kind you think are quality, done in the USA, published in good journals, which have found the lower threshold at which not neurologic damage is observed.
Many more studies I can put here, those are just a start.
LikeLike
Bill, you’re dealing in hypotheticals. I’m dealing in realities. Skeletal fluorosis is so extremely rare in the U.S. as to be almost non-existent. With 73% of the nation fluoridated, were we all being overexposed, skeletal fluorosis would be rampant.
Steve
Steven D. Slott, DDS PO Box 1744 Burlington, NC. 27216
Sent from my iPad
>
LikeLike
Steve
“Sorry, Bill, but you are still predicating your arguments on your own personal opinion that fluoride at the optimal level is a drug. You can certainly try to make that argument in court as have other fluoridation opponents, but the courts have rejected it each and every time.”
Etc etc.
An absolutely outstanding example of accuracy and clarity of thought. The antis persist in obfuscation, equivocation and hypotheticals “what if ….”. Given their small numbers I wonder if they fall within the frequency range of OCDs? I’ll look it up.
LikeLike
On the question of OCDs in relation to the fluoride debate. I did some delving and came up with some encouraging preliminaries. Readers can judge for themselves and read further. At the very least it is worth bearing in mind when confronting a certain kind of patterned ritualised procedure that seems to be immune to reasoned argument or selectively dwells on improbabilities and hypotheticals that seem to defy common experience.
The Introduction in Stanford.edu starts
“Clinical Picture
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized by obsessions or compulsions or both. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Fourth Edition) describes obsessions as recurrent, persistent ideas, thoughts, images or impulses that are experienced at some time during the illness as ego-dystonic, i.e., intrusive, senseless, excessive, repugnant, or absurd. The obsessions are not simply worries about real-life problems. Common morbid themes are contamination, aggression, harm avoidance, distasteful or excessive sexual ideas, religious concerns, fears of offending others, a need to know, orderliness and perfection. The person recognizes these ideas as products of his or her own mind and tries to suppress or ignore them, without much success.”
http://ocd.stanford.edu/about/symptoms.html
“Despite the irrational behaviour, OCD is sometimes associated with above-average intelligence.[4][5] Its sufferers commonly share personality traits such as high attention to detail, avoidance of risk, careful planning, exaggerated sense of responsibility and a tendency to take time in making decisions.[6]”
And some pretty famous and successful people have been OCD.
“Despite the irrational behaviour, OCD is sometimes associated with above-average intelligence.[4][5] Its sufferers commonly share personality traits such as high attention to detail, avoidance of risk, careful planning, exaggerated sense of responsibility and a tendency to take time in making decisions.[6]”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
I think it is reasonable to assume some members of the fraternity will qualify perhaps remembering most of us exhibit some signs in restricted ways. Maybe the capacity to suppress the impulse is a factor too. But I think the tendency to persist with discredited ideas and arguments is a rather telling one. My remarks are likely to be labelled ad hominen by some but in view of my last point (persistence of discredited ideas) I think the issue has to be at least considered.
LikeLike
Sorry about the duplicated paragraph.
LikeLike
Steve,
What stage of skeletal fluorosis are you looking for?
Bill
LikeLike
Stuart,
You raise some excellent points.
Wrong Courts. The Federal Courts deal with Federal law. FDA CDER has not been taken to court over fluoridation, to my knowledge. Takes a great deal of money to fight cities and counties, states and Federal governments in court because they have deep pockets, unlimited tax payer money.
You have mentioned “optimal” fluoride a couple times. Please define your term. Are you talking optimal for water, food, urine, serum or tooth?
Please be more specific.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting Stuart that those promoting fluoridation of public water are OCD? Compulsively promoting what science does not support.
Is your argument supposed to provide scientific evidence on what aspect of fluoride exposure and effect on human body?
I’m not a Psychiatrist, but my best friend is. He certainly would not call me OCD. And I’m not qualified to make such a diagnosis of myself or you.
So why don’t we stick to fluoridation the topic at hand. If you feel you are OCD, see a Psychologist or Psychiatrist rather than a dentist.
LikeLike
Bill,
I’m not looking for any stage of skeletal fluorosis. Opponents often try to make an argument for the 3 stages, when confronted with the rarity of the disorder. But, the fact is that skeletal fluorosis is so rare that it is nearly non-existent. With tens of millions of people having ingested fluoridated water for decades, there would have been epidemics of clearly diagnosable Stage 2 and stage 3 SF were there any problematic overdosing of fluoride occurring. There have not been. Make the argument if you wish, but 68 years of experience says otherwise.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
KEN sorry no link for WHO_EHC_227
Here’s Dr Google https://www.google.com.au/search?q=WHO_EHC_227&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=jEyZUvfpCO7C8geij4D4Dg&gws_rd=cr
LikeLike
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
Perhaps we should look at the chemistry of NaCl then assuming NaF is more reactive (normally in chemistry F would be more reactive than Cl) The question I have is how does NaF interfere with NaCl biochemistry?
As both are halogens and NaCl has been well studied for example http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/sodium/
LikeLike
Ian,
I’m not a chemist and should not attempt to answer your question.
LikeLike
Steve,
Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.
Same as the argument used by the tobacco companies. Unless a person drops dead instantly, then it is safe. I reject that argument.
NRC 2006, “Overall, the committee finds that the predicted bone fluoride concentrations that can be achieved from lifetime exposure to fluoride at 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg bone ash) fall within or exceed the ranges of concentrations that have been associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis.”
All a person needs to do is drink 4 liters of water a day and they will be exposed to the same as 1 liter of 4 mg/L of water and that is assuming normal kidney function and a diet not high in fluoride or swallowing fluoride toothpaste. Simply too many assumptions for my comfort. Certainly confidence is not high that fluoride at 1 ppm or 0.7 ppm is protective of everyone. And remember, there is no caution or warning with fluoridation not to consume too much water.
What some fluoridationists seem to have done, is put tradition and dental caries above other diseases such as skeletal fluorosis. You suggest opponents of fluoridation have three stages of skeletal fluorosis. So before we even start with harm, we need to review some aspects of skeletal fluorosis. A good source is the National Academy of Science 2006 report for the EPA. On page 139 it provides some background.
“Skeletal Fluorosis
Excessive intake of fluoride will manifest itself in a musculoskeletal disease with a high morbidity. This pathology has generally been termed skeletal fluorosis. Four stages of this affliction have been defined, including a preclinical stage and three clinical stages that characterize the severity. The preclinical stage and clinical stage I are composed of two grades of increased skeletal density as judged by radiography, neither of which presents with significant clinical symptoms. In clinical stage II, symptoms characterized by sporadic pain, stiffness of joints, and osteosclerosis of the pelvis and spine are observed. Clinical stage III is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones. Stage III has been termed “crippling” skeletal fluorosis because mobility is significantly affected as a result of excessive calcifications in joints, ligaments, and vertebral bodies. This stage may also be associated with muscle wasting and neurological deficits due to spinal cord compression. The current MCLG is based on induction of crippling skeletal fluorosis (50 Fed. Reg. 20164 [1985]). Because the symptoms associated with stage II skeletal fluorosis could affect mobility and are precursors to more serious mobility problems, the committee judges that stage II is more appropriately characterized as the first stage at which the condition is adverse to health. Thus, this stage of the affliction should also be considered in evaluating any proposed changes in drinking water standards for fluoride.”
Can we agree there are four stages. NRC 2006 agreed stage II is adverse to health. At least that’s what we know as of today. Give us more research, I would suggest stage I will someday be of greater concern. But as of today, we need more research.
NRC 2006 continues on page 140, “In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased (see Chapter 3). It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons (Hanhijarvi et al. 1972) and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis (Juncos
and Donadio 1972; Johnson et al. 1979).”
Apparently some sub populations are at higher risk. NRC 2006 reports only 5 cases of stage III in the USA over a 37 year period. One can argue that the greater good of decay reduction is worth the sacrifice of 5 people and argue those 5 might still have had skeletal fluorosis. Obviously if it were my family, I would not be so cavalier.”
And the section concludes, “The condition (stage II and III) does not appear to have been systematically investigated in recent years in U.S. populations that have had long-term exposures to high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. Thus, research is needed on clinical stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis to clarify the relationship of fluoride
ingestion, fluoride concentration in bone, and clinical symptoms.”
Steve, my confidence level is very low that fluoridation is not contribution to harm of skeletal fluorosis for at least some.
Please provide research to raise my confidence in the safety of fluoridation for everyone.
LikeLike
Bill –
“LOOKS LIKE we might just have a lower IQ with fluoridation”
Really, how? Do you have any idea what physiological mechanisms are involved?
No?
The Choi study is a meta analysis and as such should be treated as one; perhaps good at giving an overview of of a topic but limited to useless at providing any useful therapeutic conclusions.
But regarding the Choi study.
It’s not just a poor study, it’s utterly useless showing a causitive relationship between low IQ and Fluoride.
And especially in the 0.7ppm range which is where this blog is concerned.
But this study is rolled out and paraded time and again as though it means something – and right on queue, you have done just that.
You said “And proponents say, “poor study.” And I say, Yep, show me your better study. And proponents are silent”
mmm….where to begin.
It is the responsibilty of the person who claims something is so…is so, and why.
If anyone has a sneaking suspicion that the government is adding chemicals to commercial planes to dump on the general population in order to dumb them down then the onus of proof is NOT on me to prove that this is not the case.
and the inevitable “But silence is not proof of safety or harm”
Sigh, yes of course you are right, but don’t forget it is YOUR responsibilty in the first place to show that Fluoridated water influences IQ. You suspect it.
Not me.
I don’t have any responsibility whatsoever to provide ANY studies to show relationship between fluoride and IQ.
Or
fluoride and obesity
fluoride and happiness
fluoride and ADHD
fluoride and commodity prices
fluoride and the existence of the tooth fairy
LikeLike
Any accidental ingestion, for example children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste will prompt the advice from our national (NZ) Poison Centre,
“you have nothing to worry about”.
Dr. Bill and his friends indulging in scare tactics.
NZs principle problem is over indulgence in alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and methamphetamine which causes marked cognitive impairment, temporary or permanent. This is almost certainly reflected in road, workplace accidents and domestic violence, a worldwide problem that betrays the anti F-s as charlatans and Flat Earthers.
LikeLike
Dear Bill, Welcome to New Zealand, a wonderful country that I have visited twice and am very happy to see that their country has embraced water fluoridation as the foundation for a sound dental public health policy.
I feel like this will be a PRATT response to you: “points responded a thousand times”. For you, it doesn’t matter how many times a supporter of fluoridation responds to your accusations about fluoridation.
Let’s look at the NRC 2006 report:
From page 2 of the Executive Summary for the 2006 NRC Report reference on what exactly the 12-member panel of the committee DID NOT review:
“Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge”.
There were 3 avowed opponents to fluoridation on the 12 member panel of the 2006 NRC Study. The three anti’s goal was to get the MCLG for fluoride reduced to 0. They did not succeed.
The report came out in March 2006 that concluded at 4 ppm or above there were only 3 concerns:
1) 10% of kids would get severe dental fluorosis (drops to 0 % at 2 ppm).
Drinking water at a fluoride concentration of 4 ppm or above over a lifetime:
2) Increased risk of skeletal fluorosis
3) Increased risk for bone fractures.
The 3 opponents signed off on the final document, but they continue to do the anti-fluoride circuit claiming that fluoridation at optimal levels causes all kinds of “ugly things”.
On March 22, 2013, Dr. John Doull sent this E-mail to Matt Jacob of the PEW Foundation:
“Dear Matt, In response to your question, I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level. I also feel that there is no reason why Kansas City residents should avoid drinking the fluoridated water that is provided by the community water system. Sincerely, John Doull, M.D., PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee report on Fluoride in Drinking Water.
(for my Kiwi readers, Dr. Doull resides in Kansas City, Kansas, USA)
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
You said;
“Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.”
Who here has said this?
I know you have been reading, as you respond to some questions so I can’t accuse you of not reading. It appears that have you just have a closed your mind, you just don’t seem to take on board what is being written – exasperating!
This mirrors Kurt’s observation of a PRATT’s.
You appear cogent, educated. You can string sentences together coherently so – why oh why are you doing this?
You said “Same as the argument used by the tobacco companies.”
Forgive me, but you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist…
You said “Unless a person drops dead instantly, then it is safe. I reject that argument.”
Yes, I too reject that argument. It’s stupid and ignorant.
But what is interesting is that you have just ascribed it as an argument proposed and supported by fluoride proponents. Who has said this?
This is a straw man argument, a species of logical fallacy.
Bill, you have changed/altered what others have said/meant before in the past.
This is dishonest and misleading
LikeLike
Great post Christopher!
“The Philosopher” said the best way to deal with people who maintain contraries is not to. The great Scot Thomas Reid was even less accomodating. “If all else fails resort to irony or even sarcasm”.
LikeLike
Wonderful! Says it all. Kiwis! Stop treating him respectfully. He’s a nutter or a charlatan or both.
LikeLike
Thanks Stuart,
I also like the acerbic quote ascribed to Thomas Jefferson…
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…”
I think Cedric fits into that one nicely!
LikeLike
I like Jeffersons other famous remark.
“Any ass can kick a barn down but it takes a carpenter to build one!”
Translates very well I think to this debate. Visionary courageous people implement policies to improve human well being and dickheads sabotage them.
LikeLike
I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position on important issues and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.
Both sides are amazed that the other side could believe such radically different things about this fluoridation issue. One way to respond to this is to keep asking questions, keep learning, and keep teaching and hope somehow understanding and maybe agreement can be reached. The other way is to descend into name calling.
I don’t know which side of this debate you are on, Stuart, but it doesn’t matter. It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”. Name calling shows you are not patient enough to stick to rational discussion and either be convinced or convince someone else.
Cut it out. .
LikeLike
Ian, do you not recognise that posting a comment like the one you have without being able to present a proper reference is very unconvincing. It adds nothing to your argument and actually undermines you credibility.
LikeLike
James, I think it best to not divert the discussion with little lectures like this. Why not keep on track and deal with the subject of discussion?
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
You said;
“Several serious problems. First, some people drink a lot more water than others. Perhaps at 1 liter a day or 2 a day, but what about 11 liters of water a day?”
You appear fixated with how much water people should drink, bordering on the farcical. 11 litres!
Why stop there?…what would happen if someone drank 20 litres. Hey, what about 50!?
Tell me what would happen?
Perhaps water toxicity.
You said “All a person needs to do is drink 4 liters of water a day and they will be exposed to the same as 1 liter of 4 mg/L of water…
You are being a little cavalier with your math aren’t you!…the last time I looked, 0.7 multiplied by 4 was 2.8.
“Simply too many assumptions for my comfort”
I agree, far too many assumptions, not only for my bladder but for any logical conclusions to be made.
Nevertheless, it appears that on one hand you make definitive statements about fluoride and perceived dangers yet you then proceed to hide behind a veil of ignorance by saying;
“In effect, we are discussion and have taken positions on a subject which we really have incomplete evidence”
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
Most telling is near your conclusion when you say;
“In such debate, it is almost better to not have any research because the focus is on the flaws of the other person’s research”
After my fluoride encrusted jaw dropped, it all slowly became clear… like a Chem Trail dissipating on a clear summer’s day.
Be honest Bill, you really don’t know how the scientific method works do you?
LikeLike
I hope this is not too much of a diversion Ken but if you could please indulge me..
Hi jamesrobertdeal,
You said of Stuart,
“It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”. Name calling shows you are not patient enough to stick to rational discussion and either be convinced or convince someone else.”
If you actually read what Stuart wrote, he did not call any ONE a dickhead.
He was referring to a generic group – those saboteurs of people implementing policies that improve human well being…
But while you are here and that you are ready for rational discussion, I would really appreciate it if you could answer the question I posed to you on Monday…
“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
LikeLike
Presume he is referring to the Portland Alliance. No credibility whatsoever.
LikeLike
Bill
If 68 years of experience and the extreme rarity of skeletal fluorosis in 73% fluoridated United States don’t allay your fears about this disorder, that’s your prerogative. The 2006 NRC only stated risk of severe dental fluorosis and bone fractures as its reason to recommend lowering the primary MCL. They deemed the secondary of 2.0 mg/liter to be adequately protective. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, one third the level deemed safe by the 2006 NRC.
Those facts are certainly ample enough for me to have no concerns about skeletal fluorosis in relation to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
“Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.”
This is a self-evident strawman.
It’s certainly not a quote from anyone around here.
You made it up all by yourself.
Did it make you feel better?
Shame on you.
Here’s an idea. How about you stick to the real conversation going on around you? Maybe use quotes? Yeah?
Seriously, what is wrong with people like you?
Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use…
No.
This won’t do at all. I’m not a “fluoridationist”.
Nor am I an Evolutionist. Nor a gravityist. Nor a moonlanding-ist.
I’m merely a person that is in sync with the mainstream scientific consensus.
Not much more to it than that.
It’s me and the CDC. Me and NASA. Me and the NIH. Me and the CSIRO etc,etc,etc.
Not just on fluoride, though. Oh no..
On all sorts of things.
You have a problem with my views on fluoride?
Don’t waste your time on the internet.
Enter the scientific arena. Get some work done. Take it up with the global scientific community. Once you win them over, come back and say “hi”.
Otherwise, shut your pie-hole.
It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”.
This is what it took to for you to worm your way out of the woodwork and make a comment? How sad. For weeks now, you had a target-rich environment of cranks and loons making all sorts of deperately stupid arguments linking to no-name science denier blogs…and you decide to add your two cents worth bleating about rude names.
(..awkward silence…)
Sad.
Get a life.
I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position on important issues and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.
Let’s test that, shall we?
“I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position that the moon landings never happened and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.
Both sides (me and my friends on the internet versus NASA and every single scientifc community on the planet) are amazed that the other side could believe such radically different things about the Apollo missions. One way to respond to this is to keep asking questions, keep learning, and keep teaching and hope somehow understanding and maybe agreement can be reached. The other way is to descend into name calling.”
No. That’s just stupid.
I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s just a simple observation.
People living in the 21st century that don’t believe that the moon landings happened are stupid.
We’re just not dealing with the sharpest pencils in the box here.
Dickheads?
Sure. You have to be a dickhead to argue no matter what to support such an untenable position. The arguments that science deniers make are dishonest. They are fallacious. It’s endless quote-mining and anomoly hunting and shifting the burden of proof and an hominem and trolling and conspiracy thinking.
Even (and I kid you not), even when it’s pointed out to them again and again and again that the way they are going about things is fallacious.
When they persist, that makes them dickheads.
Indeed, I’d argue that there’s no more honest description.
Science deniers should not be given any faux respect.
If your position is “X” and that paricular “X” stands in the face of every single relevent scientific community on the planet then it’s one of two things.
Either A:
You’re in line for a Nobel Prize
or B:
You are an idiot that has great difficulty embracing reality and you need to spend a little less time embracing kooky konspiracy theories.
How do you tell the difference, you may ask?
Easy.
Methodology. Methodology. Methodology.
Baloney Detection Kit, (Dr. Michael Shermer)
LikeLike
Cedric, in case you missed it, Paul Melters responded to your challenge https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/fluoridation-debate-why-i-support-fluoridation-2nd-reply-to-connett/#comment-47953
I’ve got my popcorn in.
LikeLike
Thanks for your reply Bill
Sorry Ken its just a hypothesis it just seems fair to ask about biochemical pathways given that this is part of the debate, if we are to fully understand how F interacts in the human body we need to understand how it is metabolised not just what it does for teeth – humans are inquisitive especially scientists
Next question for anybody in the studies with high F consumption what is the chemical composition, mix NaF, CaF2, other soluble F or are we assuming that all F is available for absorption???
Regarding water consumption l recommend a look at (or others just use Dr Google)
http://waterintakecalculator.com/
http://www.ehow.com/how_5868404_calculate-water-consumption-needs.html
You’ll be amazed how much water people need especially in a hot climate and if consider a professional sports person, a labourer who works outside all day I can see how a person could easily get to 8+litres a day
I can think of quiet a few people who would exercise more than this in their normal manual jobs
LikeLike
Ian, where is your inquisitiveness about the chlorine you ingest with every swallow of water?
Consuming 8 liters of water per day would be excessive by any standards. Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior. Any who engage in this behavior must take responsibility themselves to assure that they are not ingesting an excessive amount of chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, or any other water additives if they are concerned with this.
Even your excessive 8 liter per day water will still fall short of the IOM upper level, 10 mg, before adverse effects, however. Eight liters of fluoridated water per day would only mean a total daily intake of 7.5 mg fluoride from all sources.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Another not discussed area is how bottled water affects achieving optimal F levels ? This creates another unknown in epidemiological studies.
according to the NRDC
“More than half of all Americans drink bottled water; about a third of the public consumes it regularly. Sales have tripled in the past 10 years, to about $4 billion a year”
http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/exesum.asp
CDC http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/bottled/.
LikeLike
Sincere folks with a genuine desire in subjecting claims that are paraded as scientific claims frequently don’t realise they (and the debate) are being “gamed”. The “game” is parading posturing that is really personal narcism, right wing Libertarianism parading as liberalism, narrow vested financial interests, free market politics and the denial of cooperative strategies of a non zero sum kind aimed at the general welfare. It is frequently accompanied with accusations in some countries with cries of “nanny state” or “socialism”. Among people who should know better this is nothing to do with an honest misunderstanding of the way things have to be, it is a deliberate ploy to encourage a system, a world view that delivers the welfare that belongs to everyone, to an elite arrogant selfish few. It’s proponents should not be treated politely, they should be given no quarter. Their currency is deliberate persistent misinformation. Their strategy is discernible in Big Tobacco, Climate Change denial and now anti fluoridation. That is why their most outrageous claims are situated in the on-line equivalent of the “gutter press” as I discovered above.
LikeLike
Thanks Cedric.
Stu.
LikeLike
Christopher,
Please stop the personal attacks and stick to the subject. Demeaning comments are not productive. Insinuating that I can’t think and am stupid is not scientific or on topic.
You suggest you (I presume you mean fluoridationists) have no responsibility to ensure fluoridation is safe or provide any research on the safety of fluoridation for the brain. Then who has responsibility? Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?
Public Health professionals and proponents have the responsibility to ensure the use of police powers to give everyone fluoride is not causing harm. They keep claiming safety and expect the patient to provide the research. That is why the FDA CDER was set up by Congress so the manufacturer, not the patient or public, is responsible for claims made, manufacturing, label, branding, etc. The person doing the action has the responsibility for their actions.
Speak up. Do all fluoridationists agree they have no responsibility for scientific evidence on the safety of fluoride to the brain?
LikeLike
Christopher,
Your constant attack of the messenger rather than the message is clear evidence you don’t have scientific evidence.
LikeLike
Steve, you say the NRC 2006 “They deemed the secondary of 2.0 mg/liter to be adequately protective. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, one third the level deemed safe by the 2006 NRC.”
Please provide a page for your reference.
Thanks,
Bill
LikeLike
Ian,
Your question on chemicals is certainly appropriate. I thought you were asking about other chemicals than fluoride.
The NRC 2006 report and earlier reports deal somewhat with absorption. Medications with fluoride usually do not contribute much fluoride, an estimated 10% of the fluoride stays in the body.
And your comments on the amount of water consumed is hitting at part of my concerns as a nutritionist for total exposure and dentist as dosage.
Mean, average, and median are misleading when we are trying to make the chemical safe for everyone. If we are going to make it safe for 90% or 95% of the public, then we need to say so.
If a person drinks a great deal of water and also takes fluoride medications and swallows toothpaste and drinks tea or wine with higher concentrations of fluoride, those people are at higher risk.
LikeLike
Steve,
Would you please provide a reference either law or published public health advisory or research or some other document to support your statement,
“Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior. Any who engage in this behavior must take responsibility themselves to assure that they are not ingesting an excessive amount of chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, or any other water additives if they are concerned with this.”
I would disagree. You have suggested that some people drink too much water (8 L/d) and they need to take responsibility for their excessive behavior.
What would your advice be to those people who feel they need more water?
What is the public health position on how much water is safe and how much drinking water is excessive behavior?
Are there exceptions for people like diabetics or lactating mothers or soldiers or laborers? My memory is the army sent out 3 gallons of drinking water for each soldier each day in Iraq. Would you consider the military excessive behavior for drinking water?
Thanks
LikeLike
Stuart,
Please stop calling me names, such as “parading posturing,” “narcism,” “right wing Libertarianism” “narrow vested financial interests,” “nanny state” or “socialism” ‘elite arrogant selfish’.”
You really don’t know me and your name calling is unacceptable. Please provide evidence and references for the above.
Please provide research supporting your position in favor of fluoridation.
LikeLike
“The key problem is that there is a lack of good quality evidence of both effectiveness and harm. This is a point consistently raised in reviews of water fluoridation (McDonagh et al. 2000, NRC 2006, NHMRC 2007, SCHER 2011).”
“Evidence-based public health presents particular problems relating to the nature of the evidence and how this is applied in practice (Dobrow et al. 2004, Petticrew et al. 2004) . . . Medicine focuses on the individual patient. . . public health is not focused on the individual but on populations, and, by its very nature, is a more political process than medicine as it deals with social processes. . . . It is because of the population-wide application of public health interventions that Skarabanek (1994) argued that the link between evidence and public health interventions should be stronger than that for other forms of medical interventions because public health deals with people who are not ‘ill’ nor have they approached a health care practitioner asking for medical assistance.”
The scientific evidence for fluoridation should be stronger. Please provide the “stronger” scientific evidence. Several prospective randomized controlled trials would help. But there is not one.
LikeLike
The last class of my public health master’s degree, the instructor said, “you must promote and do everything your superior tells you to do regardless of the science.” I raised my hand and asked, “does that mean if my boss tells me to promote smoking tobacco I have to promote tobacco smoking?” My instructor paused, considered, and then said, “Yes.”
Holtgrave published an article, “Public Health Errors: Costing Lives, Millions at a Time,” J Pub Health Man & Prac. May/June 2010, Vol 16 Issue 3 p. 211-215 And see Commentary in that Issue by De Ville Novick “Commentary: Toward a Taxonomy of Public Health Error”
Whereas a single medical error may cost one or more lives, a public health error may cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Yet public health policy is too often without external scientific evidence based review, open dialogue with stake holders’ input, or patient freedom. In the case of fluoridation, the focus is to help the poor, and ironically it is the poor who can least afford the loss of IQ and who are most harmed.
Holtgrave divides public health errors into three types of situations, errors of deliberate commission such as contrary to standards, practices, laws or ethical norms (such as fluoridation); willful omission such as not providing action (label, branding, informed consent for treatments like fluoridation); and complacency such as paying insufficient attention to a disease (or treatment of the disease without approved drug).
Holtgrave suggests, “A common feature in those three categories of errors is an intent to do harm, or at least the lack of caring about fully discharging one’s public health duty to serve the public good.” Holtgrave argues, “that policy makers can indeed commit “errors” and should be held accountable for said errors if the policy makers know that the action they are taking is demonstrably harmful (relative to another policy option) and they have the financial, legal, and human resources to avoid implementing the relatively harmful policy.”
I had a public health dentist tell me, “I don’t care about science. I do whatever I want until a judge tells me otherwise.”
My point is, tradition is very hard to change and my public health profession has really no oversight or scientific training. The CDC dental division is made up to a great degree with military dentists who are accustomed to taking orders and following them. They take their marching orders on fluoridation from the ADA.
LikeLike
No doctor could ethically force the ingestion of even an approved drug (let alone an unapproved drug) on competent adults for a non-contagious non-life threatening disease, without ethical consent from each individual, medicating everyone in an attempt to medicate children while their teeth are developing, with an uncontrolled dosage, based on highly disputed cherry picked low quality scientific evidence, and with the drug readily available off the shelf providing freedom of choice (toothpaste) as an alternative. If a doctor did what public water providers are doing, they would lose their license to practice medicine.
Science is not stagnant, is not set in stone, and is constantly being challenged and changing. History has sometimes not been kind to scientists and public health professionals who have used unapproved drugs for treatments on people without their consent (Nuremberg Trials) or with held treatment or even the information, public health education, of potential treatment from cohorts (Tuskegee). Public water providers must actively educate the public towards health rather than medicate the public towards “health.”
Holtgrave reminds us that, “in public health there is not an analogue to the Hippocratic Oath from medicine (“first of all, do no harm”).” In public health, the standards of performance are ambiguous and the decision makers less clearly identifiable, more distal and more numerous than in clinical medicine. The attitude and culture of the public health profession is omniscient, omnipresent and potestas imperium.
Issues of ethics emerge with value conflicts. Some people value teeth more than brains and have gained enough potestas imperium control to force everyone into submission to their value of mass medication rather than mass education. Even if the masses voted for an illegal act, such as segregation of schools, the vote does not make the act legal. When there are value conflicts, public water providers must provide freedom of choice, do no harm, and obey the law.
The Czech Republic provides freedom for individual choice and does not fluoridate public water. Even without fluoridated water Oganessian (2011) has raised concerns for excess fluoride ingestion from other sources and summarized key considerations for preschool children:
• “During the period when the enamel of permanent teeth is maturing it is vulnerable even to small over-doses of fluoride.”
• “One of the main issues of dental public health is to minimize the risk of fluoride overdose by the fluoride and diet counseling both in individual and community levels.”
• “There is also a bottled table mineral water with a fluoride content exceeding 0.7 ppm, which must be obligatorily labeled as “not suitable for children up to 7 years.”
• “As to other sources of fluorides, there is no fluoridation of drinking water in the Czech Republic, fluoridated toothpastes for children are available country-wide and fluoride tablets are administered rarely.”
• “Children aged 4 to 5 years accidentally swallow 30 to 40% of the tooth paste when cleaning teeth.”
It is time for public health officials and dentists to seriously and calmly review their positions on fluoride ingestion.
LikeLike
The CDC dental division is made up to a great degree with military dentists who are accustomed to taking orders and following them. They take their marching orders on fluoridation from the ADA.
oooh goody,
Now we are warming up.
Whom does the Royal Society take orders from?
Whom does the Surgeon General take orders from?
LikeLike
Great questions Richard,
Review the scientific evidence they provide for their position.
The Surgeon General has been clear more than once that they do not determine the safety or efficacy for the substances they recommend. They leave that to the FDA CDER.
LikeLike
Bill you forgot to mention that fluoridated salt is used in the Czech republic
“Salt fluoridation was implemented in the Czech and the Slovak Republics in the mid-nineties. The market share of the
fluoridated domestic salt appears to have reached 35% in the
Czech Republic; it became eventually part of a preventive
strategy comprising school-based dental health education
including topical fluoride.” Edited by THOMASM. MARTHALER
1
and GEORGEW. POLLAK
2
1
Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology
and Cariology, Center for Dentistry, University of Zurich
2
Weinbergstrasse 31, CH-8006 Zurich
LikeLike
Bill what I was trying to get to is how NaCl in the body (not in added salt although this might also have other implications) is migrated between cells, (cell chemistry) but in particular in kidney function..ie as is more reactive does NaF exchange alter the bio activity of NaCl
Also NaF also adds more Na to the diet which for many in western society is already high (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/sodium/)
Both are alkaline metal halogens
LikeLike
Review the scientific evidence they provide for their position.
Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.
Are you saying that the Royal Society do indeed review the scientific evidence when they make a statement on fluoridation or do you think they just get “marching orders” from someone or some organsation as the CDC do?
C’mon, you know the answer.
LikeLike
Dear Bill,
Hola from Portland, again. Perhaps I missed some earth shattering new, but the last legal case involving a fluoridation suit was judge in favor of the defendant, the Metro Water District of Southern California. (August 9, 2011)
References:
Filing:
Click to access Foli-v-metropolitan-water-district-of-southern-california-11CV1765-JLS-5373546-0-9893.pdf
Ruling:
http://ia601202.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourt…
Closer to our home, just north in Washington State, you and Mr. Deal are much more familiar with this ruling. Basically, no court of last resort in the United States has ever ruled that fluoridation is forced medication or a drug.
In 2011 Port Angeles, WA and Forks, WA were sued for the umteenth time by opponents to fluoridation like you and Mr. Deal. Here was the final ruling.
Jefferson County Superior Court Judge Craddock Verser dismissed the case Friday on the grounds that fluoride cannot be considered a prescription drug when used in a public water supply.
The two cities, in their motion to dismiss the case, said that designation does not apply to their use of fluoride because the FDA does not regulate public drinking water.
He wrote that the plaintiffs would have to meet two criteria to prove their case: that fluoride is a prescription drug under federal law and that it is listed in the 2009 edition of the Drug Topics Red Book.
“Because the FDA does not regulate public drinking water or drinking water additives, it is impossible for plaintiffs to prove that the first requirement for being a [prescription drug] under Washington law is met,” he said.
Touché…………………and PRATT.
LikeLike
Kurt your link for the ruling doesn’t work can you re post a workable link please
LikeLike
Bill –
You said
“Christopher,Your constant attack of the messenger rather than the message…”
As detailed in my post below, I don’t attack you (the messenger) – just what you say (the message). Please get the facts right.
and;
“…is clear evidence you don’t have scientific evidence”
For what? This is unintelligable.
You are setting up another Straw Man and making an unsubstantiated claim yet again.
Again, this is dishonest
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
I am disappointed that you have inferred that I think you are stupid, I’m sure you can’t read my mind. My posts, yes…but my mind?
My comments are confined ONLY to issues that you comment on or about – which is why I am careful to quote what you actually say and ask you questions when I am unsure of what you mean.
If you extrapolate this to your persona as a whole then I cannot help this, this is your error. I can’t apologise for what I haven’t done.
While we are on the subject, do you have any specific’s you want to discuss or do you just want to blanket me with your inaccurate moral opprobrium?
But here’s another observation.
You often ignore questions
You fabricate statements not said by others (straw men)
and you routinely get things wrong
I don’t want to get in a silly tit for tat but can you please be accurate with what you say?
LikeLike
Bill –
“Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?”
So much hate
So much rhetoric
So much inaccuracy
So much ideology
So little science
LikeLike
Good on ya mate! Your the salvation of your professions reputation.
Stuart.
LikeLike
Kury I meant.
A refreshing change from monotonous obscurantism from you know who!
LikeLike
Steve asked Ian, where is your inquisitiveness about the chlorine you ingest with every swallow of water?
we are in a F debate however you do raise a valid point at Cl is a halogen just like fluoride although not as reactive, however then you would also raise the issue of bromine & Iodine I would suspect total halogen/halide intake may possibly be relevant but I have not seen any mention in this discussion if you have a link I would be interested
Steve Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior.
I guess that would mean a professional sports person would be at risk as I would agree that they have excessive behavior you know training many hours daily I would still expect any health body would certainly be wise enough to take 99.9+% of populations behaviours into account
LikeLike
It’s Bill and his mates who don’t have the evidence. That’s why they dwell on questionable papers and the minutiae of never ending pompous prevarication. Oh and Chris – they don’t forget crucial details, they suppress them.
LikeLike
Review the scientific evidence they provide for their position.
“Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society…”
Ah, but what if someone on Twitter says they’re wrong?
You may have your fancy-smancy scientists and your NASA and your Royal Society on the one hand and all the work they do but then there’s…some guy with a blog.
It’s an impossible choice.
Besides, the blog has some pictures. Maybe even a graph.
Dara O’Briain: Science doesn’t know everything
LikeLike
I already have. Above. But you didn’t read it. That too is evidence, evidence of your complete insincerity. Your not a scientist. You a contrarian making a living on the lecture circuit preaching to the converted and selling books and pamphlets. Just like your mates at Discovery Institute.
LikeLike
Bill asks: “Please provide a page for your reference”
Certainly, Bill.
On page 2 of the 2006 NRC Report:
“On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate
independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of
2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect
children and others from adverse health effects. ”
Also on page 2:
“After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted
since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the
present MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered. Exposure at the
MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, a condition that is associated with enamel loss and pitting. In addition, the
majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG is not likely to be pro-
tective against bone fractures. ”
The Committee was charged with evaluating the adequacy of the primary and secondary MCLs to be protective of the public. The Committee made a recommendation to lower the primary. It made no recommendation to lower the secondary. Thus, it deemed the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm to be adequately protective of the public. Had it not, it would have recommended lowering, as it did for the primary.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Dear Steve,
Note that the EPA MCL, MCLG, and SMCL pertain to naturally occurring fluoride and any fluoride contamination through pollution. These 2 ppm and 4 ppm limits are limits on naturally occurring fluoride and pollution. They are not a green light to add fluoride up to 2 ppm and 4 ppm.
The 2006 NRC Report at page xiii clarifies this, saying:
“In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 4 mg/L and a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water. These exposure values are not recommendations for the artificial fluoridation of drinking water, but are guidelines for areas in the United States that are contaminated or have high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride.”
Naturally occurring calcium fluoride is not a good thing to drink, but it only dissolves up to 8 ppm, and it comes with its own buffering calcium. It is not immediately poisonous like the synthetic fluorides, which contain no buffering calcium or magnesium. It is a gross error to say that artificial fluoridation is just the adjusting of naturally occurring fluoride. This is because the artificial fluorides come with no calcium to buffer them, and they are fully soluble in water. Also the silicofluorides contain lead and leach lead from pipes, something that calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride do not do. Also they contain arsenic, cadmium mercury, lead, and thallium in small amounts.
Next note that the EPA told the NRC not to review fluoride added to drinking water. EPA administrators did not want to know anything bad about fluoridation. EPA told HHS not to discuss artificial water fluoridation in the 2006 NRC Report. The SDWA requires that the EPA get outside review every five years. So in 2003 EPA commissioned the NRC to conduct a very limited evaluation of fluoridation policies.
The EPA twists what NRC says to imply that NRC endorses artificial water fluoridation. The EPA says in its New Fluoride Risk Assessment:
“The NRC 2006 report does not question the beneficial effects for fluoride at levels practiced for fluoridation programs.”
This is a bad faith argument, because the EPA told the NRC not to cover fluoridation programs. The NRC explains:
“Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge. 2006 NRC 1-2.”
On the one hand, EPA, CDC, and HHS were endorsing continued water fluoridation. On the other hand, EPA was telling NRC not to research the subject. And on the other hand the EPA was using NRC’s reduced coverage of water fluoridation in the 2006 NRC Report to imply that the NRC was not critical of water fluoridation.
Either the EPA of the FDA could ban fluoridation. Only the FDA can authorize fluoridation because it is intended to affect health and so meets the federal definition of a drug – in spite of what our stupid Washington Supreme Court had to say.
But the EPA cannot require fluoridation due to direct language in the Safe Drinking Water act. The SDWA specifically prohibits EPA from passing any regulation requiring the addition of any chemical to drinking water for medical purposes. See 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)[3]:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”
So EPA instead just recommends fluoridation and passes the buck to NSF to declare consumption of industrial fluorides to be safe. But before EPA administrators passed the buck to NSF, the EPA scientists wrote the guidelines for NSF, which say that 20 tox studies are to be done. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-60-excerpts2.pdf. They are not being done. State laws allow fluoridation only if fluoridation materials “comply” with NSF 60. Because NSF is not doing the tox studies, the materials do not “comply”, and fluoridation with synthetic fluoride is illegal. Another law is ignored.
Read the whole story at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham.
LikeLike
Bill, my comment on excessive behavior with public health initiatives is my opinion. Readers may take that any way they choose.
Yes, I consider consumption of 3 gallons (11 liters) per day water during war maneuvers to be excessive. You don’t? The term “excessive” is not a judgement as to whether the behavior is positive or negative. Too, you assume that the 3 gallons you state is provided per day to these military personnel is fluoridated. Even if it is, this still only results in 10.26 mg total daily fluoride intake for even the most most extreme of scenarios, and this is only for a short term. The upper limit is chronic average intake of 10 mg. This is clear evidence of the broad range of safety which exists between the optimal level and the upper limit.
Medically compromised individuals and lactating mothers must be attuned to all substances they consume, in accordance with the recommendations of their healthcare providers. This is certainly not limited to fluoride intake.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian, the daily upper limit is the average, chronic intake of fluoride. The United States population is 317 million. Even the relatively few numbers of “professional sports persons” for whom you express concern, could consume 2-3 gallons of water per day and be within that upper limit.
Steven ad. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I heard once on a discussion on National Radio NZ that the recommended quantity of water, 7 litres was aid representation by bottled water companies. The 7 litres (or whatever the quantity was) was in fact total water needs including water in food, a figure used by US military food planners during second world war. Someone might find the original story and verify that. Anyway the amount became an urban legend encouraging people to swig water all day out of fashionable drink bottles. I think many people used filtered water and I would say the consumption has been quite exaggerated. But that would need verifying. If the amount has been overstated then that would erode the force of the concerns regarding massive water ingestion. Whatever the precise figure I would think excessive water uptake is highly improbable.
LikeLike
Chris,
You bring up an interesting point with fluoridated salt. France has fluoridated salt and according to a French friend, none of the salt is used in commercial foods and the use is declining.
An obvious advantage to fluoridated salt is freedom of choice.
A far better form of dispensing is to have a person swallow a baby pea size of tooth paste which has a quarter mg of fluoride. Of course the FDA warns not to swallow that much. But fluoride toothpaste is readily available, cheaper than fluoridated water and gives people freedom of choice.
LikeLike
I once watched a documentary on the Six Day war. Israeli soldiers were rationed about 11 (12?) litres of water a day for optimal fighting performance.
In the desert.
Fighting, mind you.
(Granted it’s only a documentary and also you have to rely on my memory.)
The point is that you could drink a lot of water until your bladder screamed for mercy.
Yet fluoridation is not going to be a problem.
Fluoride in tap water is in minute quantities. If you want to do damage to yourself from the fluoride in the water then it’s going to be a superhuman task.For a superhuman bladder.
Anti-fluoridationists are simply taking the piss.
LikeLike
Richard,
You said, “Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.”
I have several serious problems with your comment.
First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both dentistry and public health.
Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.
My request is for you to provide the Royal Societies current scientific review of fluoridation.
LikeLike
On the subject of excessive water consumption last year 2012 an Invercargill woman died from ingesting excessive coke drink, up to 10 litres per day. Autopsy reported cardiac arrhythmia from excessive sodium and caffein. Invercargill fluoridated it’s water supply. No mention of fluoride in the autopsy reported.
http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/southland/206076/woman-drank-10-litres-coke-day
LikeLike
Dear Kurt,
None of those courts have Federal jurisdiction.
You have taken those court cases out of context.
LikeLike
Christopher,
You constantly attack me personally. You called me dishonest.
Stick to the scientific evidence. Provide your science.
LikeLike
Christopher,
You say I’m setting up straw men. Well, provide scientific evidence to support your arguments rather than attacking me personally.
LikeLike
Christopher,
Your post quoted me saying:
“Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?”
Christopher, your answer has nothing to do with science or supporting your position but attacking me when you said,
“So much hate
So much rhetoric
So much inaccuracy
So much ideology
So little science”
Instead of trying to put e down as stupid, provide your position and science.
The Congress of the United States of America has charged the FDA CDER with regulation of substances intended to prevent disease. The FDA CDER requires the manufacturer to gain NDA. I posted that earlier.
In contrast, you say it is not you, promoters, in effect the manufacturer’s and promoter’s responsibility to provide the science.
Christopher, my question to you is,
In your opinion, if not the manufacturer of the product, then who’s responsibility is it to ensure the product is safe and effective? Who has jurisdiction? Please provide your evidence without attacking me personally.
LikeLike
“I have several serious problems with your comment.
First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both NASA, the Russian Space Agency and the European Space Agency.
Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.
My request is for you to provide the Royal Societies current scientific review of the moon landings.”
Happy, happy me.
🙂
You say I’m setting up straw men. Well, provide scientific evidence to support your arguments rather than attacking me personally.
Or what?
More strawmen?
Shame on you. Even if you were being attacked personally, it doesn’t justify you creating strawmen.
Grow up.
LikeLike
Stuart,
Please provide your scientific evidence.
You say I’m suppressing scientific evidence.
What can be more basic than mother’s milk? In most samples, no detectible fluoride. Mean of 0.004 ppm in non fluoridated areas, and less than 0.01 ppm in fluoridated areas. Similar to saliva and blood serum.
Formula made with fluoridated water provides the infant with 100 to 250 times more fluoride than mother’s milk.
Please provide your scientific evidence that infants are safe with that amount of fluoride and second, would you consider mother’s milk defective?
LikeLike
But fluoride toothpaste is readily available, cheaper than fluoridated water and gives people freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice.
Who could argue against freedom of choice?
You are it’s fearless defender.
Hmm.
You want people to be able to “make a choice”.
No doubt you want people to “know what the facts are”, right?
Of course you do.
It’s an “open question”.
There are “differing points of view”.
Shouldn’t the American people be allowed to “come to their own conclusion”?
Hmm.
Sounds familiar somehow.
War on Tobacco science, war on global warming science
LikeLike
Steve,
You provided your evidence and I find your approach to be very professional. Thank you.
I understand how you came to the conclusion that the NRC found the SMCL of 2mg/L of fluoride was protective. We agree the NRC said MCLG of 4mg/L was not protective. However, we disagree with the assumption that if NRC found MCLG not protective then they found 2 mg/L was protective. Their silence on SMCL should not be taken as evidence of safety. They requested a new DRA which has been done and you may have read it. Almost 8 years later and the EPA has still not come up with a new MCLG. The new MCLG maybe lower than 2 mg/L. A secondary might be less than 0.7 mg/L. As yet, we don’t know.
Thank you for your polite and studied response.
LikeLike
Steve,
In your next response, you find 3 gallons of water excessive. How much water is safe and how much water is excessive. Please provide a number and citation.
Second, you suggest 10 mg/day of fluoride is safe. Please provide your reference and a link if possible to the scientific evidence to support that dosage. What is the date that number was determined? What is the serum and urine fluoride concentration ranges that fluoride dosage produces? And what is the serum fluoride concentration for adverse effects found in the literature? CDC says serum fluoride should be less than 0.02 mg/L. Research is now showing adverse effects at >0.02 mg/L. First those questions and then we can go into the research on optimal and safe serum fluoride concentration.
LikeLike
Steve,
you said above, “Medically compromised individuals and lactating mothers must be attuned to all substances they consume, in accordance with the recommendations of their healthcare providers. This is certainly not limited to fluoride intake.”
To some degree, I am with you that individuals must be attuned to what they consume. However, at a minimum, when public health interventions may harm subpopulations, we should be even more cautious, judicious, with labels and health education to keep them “attuned.”
As a dentist, I promoted fluoridation and fluoride supplements for about 25 years. Was I attuned? No. To expect mother’s with jobs, toddlers, work, lack of sleep, without transportation and inadequate money to be attuned to complex issues like fluoridation is simply asking too much.
At a minimum, health education must include cautions not to use public water for making infant formula.
LikeLike
Stuart,
You bring up a couple interesting points.
First, you (and all of us) tend to look at the mean or median. So my question is, what percentage of the population do you want to protect for safety? The other way to say it, “what percentage of the public can be harmed and fluoridation still be an acceptable public health intervention?”
Second, “What filters remove fluoride from water?” Many are using filters, but which ones remove fluoride?
LikeLike
Bill
Swallowing a “baby pea size of toothpaste” does not expose the teeth to a low concentration of fluoride during the day as does fluoridated water. A recommendation for people to swallow a “pea size” of toothpaste with a 1200-1500 times the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water, does not seem to be a responsible alternative to consuming water with a careful dilution of 0.7 ppm fluoride. At less than $1 per person per day for fluoridation, the toothpaste option would certainly not be more cost efficient.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Domestic salt both with added fluoride (at 250 ppm) and without fluoride has been on the market since 1986. It was recommended to avoid the consumption of fluoridated salt if the local drinking water contained more than 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre. The legislation has never been modified since, except for a few developments such as the permission given to school canteens in 1993 to use fluoridated salt, provided canteen managers made sure that the drinking water contained no more than 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre. Epidemiological surveys about fluoridated salt in France are few, but they point in the same direction: decrease of DMFT and DMFS values, evident for the period 1986-1993 but minimal from 1993 to 1998. In 1999 and 2002, Service de Santé Publique, U.F.R. d’Odontologie, Université de Montpellier I, France. paul.tramini@wanadoo.fr
LikeLike
Bill
Human breast milk contains an insufficient amount of iron for proper development of infants 6 mos and older. Using the content of breast milk to justify opposition to a public health initiative which provides dental decay prevention is a poor argument.
“Breast milk contains very little iron (~0.35 mg/liter). The Institute of Medicine recommends that infants 6-12 months old get 11 mg of iron per day [1]. By this age, most babies’ iron stores have been depleted, so this iron needs to come from complementary foods, in addition to breast milk or formula. If you try to meet your infant’s iron requirement on breast milk alone, she would have to consume between 4 and 13 liters of breast milk per day, depending on your baby’s efficiency of iron absorption from breast milk (estimates range from 15-50% absorption). Most exclusively breastfed babies don’t consume much more than 1 liter of milk per day.”
—–Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. 2003, National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.
As far as your demand for scientific proof that fluoride at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not. There is no valid evidence that fluoridation causes any adverse effects for infants, mild dental fluorosis notwithstanding.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill
I stand by my assertion that by recommending no change in the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, the 2006 NRC deemed that level to be adequately protective of the public, given that this was its charge.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
As I have said before Bill Baby Formula in NZ has to be fluoride free,by law, so that cuts down the fluoride intake for infants
And it has been proved that the fluoride ‘hit’ from toothpaste only lasts an hour or two at most, so what treatment do the teeth get between brushing, and then that raises the question ,How many people in the demo-graph that need it most, actually brush once a day or even at all. I know that there are families in the north of N.Z that dont have a toothbrush each, and dental hygiene is not top of the shopping list, And you can buy coke for a buck a litre on special
LikeLike
Bill
Readers are free to assess for themselves whether or not a consumption of 3 gallons of water per day is excessive. Your question was whether I consider it to be. Again, I do.
The 10 mg upper limit is that which has been established by the Institute of Medicine. Given 68 years of history of water fluoridation with no proven adverse effects, including the extreme rarity of skeletal fluorosis, there is no valid evidence that this determination of upper level is faulty.
—–http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill: “At a minimum, health education must include cautions not to use public water for making infant formula.”
The CDC and the ADA have both cautioned that for those parents who are concerned with the risk of mild dental fluorosis, the suggestion is to use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most, if not all, of which are manufactured using low fluoride content water.
Again, public health initiatives cannot account for all excesses and all contingencies. Lactating mothers who do not accord a top priority to the substances they ingest, in the best interest of the proper development of their infants, are not a valid reason to deprive an entire population the benefit of water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steve,
Regarding toothpaste. I give that as an alternative which is less than $1/day. About 150 pea size amounts in the small Crest fluoride toothpaste tube I used to give to patients. That tube does not cost you $150 to give to your patients. And a large tube has much more and costs about 1% of fluoridated water. And ethics. Don’t forget ethics with freedom of choice.
Of course the quarter mg is not to be swallowed according to the FDA CDER.
Question: Why are you opposed to seeking FDA CDER approval for fluoridation? They have the experts and it would save a great deal of controversy.
And remember, about half of americans drink bottled water.
And remember, about 3 out of 4 have fluoridated water.
So if you really want to give everyone fluoride, then other methods of dispensing would certainly be more cost effective and greater ethics.
LikeLike
Steve,
You suggest exclusive use of mother’s milk after six months of age lacks sufficient iron. OK. I quit breast feeding long ago, at least getting any milk.
Oregon has the highest rate of breast feeding in any state. And we have 3/4 of infants getting some or all formula and half getting all food from formula.
Please provide references for your position.
LikeLike
Steve,
It is the responsibility of public health agencies to provide evidence of safety for infants. Certainly it is not the infant’s responsibility to provide you with evidence fluoridated water is not safe.
I don’t understand your logic. Do you really think infants must provide you with research?
The manufacturer has the legal responsibility to ensure their product is safe and effective with proper label, branding, marketing, manufacturing,etc. Not the consumer.
LikeLike
Steve,
I agree liquid infant formula uses low fluoride water, which is much more expensive than powdered.
Powdered infant formula requires water. Most use tap water, unless you have other data.
Those infants are ingesting far more fluoride than they should. Very few mom’s know they should usually avoid tap water to make the baby’s formula.
LikeLike
Steve,
As you can tell, I do not blindly believe and have blind trust in public health so called experts who claim things are safe and effective. Too many areas in our profession of dentistry and public health which are no longer considered safe. Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.
LikeLike
First consider the range of total fluoride exposure for a human. We can’t just consider one source, water.
Second, consider each person’s ability to excrete excess. Not all kidneys work the same and diet makes a difference in absorption, ie calcium in the diet.
Third, the best method of evaluating fluoride exposure is with blood serum fluoride concentration. Not an expensive test and should be done regularly.
Fourth, the best studies include serum and urine fluoride concentrations from cohorts.
We know adverse effects happen at very low serum fluoride concentrations, CDC says <0.02 mg/L Some studies are now showing adverse effects even lower. Controls in some studies are at 0.02 mg/L.
It would be reasonable for promoters of fluoridation to do a prospective randomized controlled trial measuring serum fluoride concentrations as the control. At least water districts should start to randomly measure serum fluoride concentrations in their patients.
LikeLike
…$1 per person per day for fluoridation.
Sorry Steve. I think that’s a typo.
You mean “per year” correct?
As far as your demand for scientific proof that fluoride at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.
Let’s test that shall we?
We shall.
“As far as your demand for scientific proof that chlorine at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.”
Hmm. Seems to work nicely.
How about we apply it to something else?
“As far as your demand for scientific proof that “x” is safe, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.”
Yep. It works. Fluoride in tap water has been around since McCarthy.
All the anti-flouride campaigners have to show for it are some very dodgy websites written in Comic Sans and a tiny band of kooks rehashing John Birch Society Newsletters.
No actual science.
Dr. Strangelove – Water Fluoridation
LikeLike
Where did you get that 50% from Bill?
Philosophically probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent. That still does not stop us from being very effective in using that imperfect knowledge. It is not in the nature of humans to sop it on their buts and do nothing just because they might be wrong.
As you say we usually don’t know what we a wrong about – however, we can develop levels of confidence sufficient to use what we know. And it is really naive to suggest we do nothing just in case we might be wrong.
>
LikeLike
Bill
Again, swallowing a pea sized dolluo of toothpaste does not provide the consistent exposure of the teeth to a low concentration of fluoridation all during the day. Fluoridation costs less than $1 per person per YEAR. According to your figures, your alternative is 365 X the cost of fluoridation, with far less benefit.
There is no requirement nor is there any need for FDA approval of optimal level fluoride added to water. It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which has existed in water since the beginning of time. Water often has in excess of the optimal level of fluoride “naturally”. It is ludicrous to demand rigid FDA testing of this mineral. Thus is the reason it is under the control of the EPA and not the FDA. Why are you not demanding FDA CDER testing of chlorine additives to water?
Steven D. Slott,,DDS
LikeLike
Bill,
I provided a reference for iron requirements of infants in my previous comment. The point is that your use of fluoride content of human breast milk as an argument against fluoridation has no validity. Human breast milk is deficient in iron. Are we to assume that anemia of developing children is what nature intended, and thus withhold iron supplementation?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill
Your are demanding proof of a negative, i.e. “I think there could be a problem, therefore prove that there isn’t”. This would be an endless process and is invalid. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effects of fluoridation with infants. It is impossible to prove every conceivable, unsubstantiated contingency that anyone, anywhere can put forth. Valid evidence that a problem exists must be provided before credibly demanding proof that it does not.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill
The cautions about powdered infant formula, fluoridated water , and mild dental fluorosis have been made by the CDC and the ADA. If you feel these cautions have not been made sufficiently known to the populace, that is a reason to admonish powdered formula manufacturers to better do their job, not a reason to deprive an entire population the benefit of the public health initiative of water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill
Nothing wrong with questioning public health or any other authority. The problem with most fluoridation opponents is that in the place of knowledgeable, recognized authoritative sources of information on fluoridation, they substitute the filtered and edited information of “fluoridealert.org” and other antifluoridationist websites maintained by personnel unqualified to properly assess validity of scientific information. Intelligent people should not blindly follow anyone, but they should rely upon reliable, accurate, and primary sources of information on which to base their opinions.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Cedric
Yes, thanks, wherever I made that statement, it should have been $1 per person per year, not per day, for fluoridation.
Steven D.mslott, DDS
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,
The EPA primary and secondary MCLs are maximum allowable levels of fluoride in public water systems. It makes no difference what the source of the fluoride. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. I am aware of no entities that seek to add fluoride up to 4 ppm because the EPA MCL is at that level.
Yes, your “Scientific Consultant” Sauerhaber attempts to make the argument about “buffering” of CaF, but it is a moot point. First, there is no such thing as “artificial fluoride”. Fluoride ions are identical regardless of whether they are released by CaF or HFA. You, yourself, have stated here that CAF dissolves as much as 8 ppm. Only enough HFA is added to systems which will increase the concentration of fluoride ions to 0.7 ppm. Whether those fluoride ions come from the dissolved CaF, from NaF, or from HFA makes no difference. They are identical.
I’ve already addressed your attempted argument about lead in answer to your comment in another section. Urbansky and Schock put that issue to rest.
Your opinions on what you think the EPA “twists”, does or does not do, your personal opinion that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a “drug”, and that our “Washington Supreme Court” is “stupid” because it won’t rule the way you want……are all irrelevant, as are your cites to your own, biased website. I’ve already addressed, with references, your erroneous argument that NSF Standard 60 requirements are not being met. You are certainly free to argue that in court if you choose, but I don’t much like your chances there.
The SDWA prohibits federal mandating of fluoridation. It does not prohibit state or local mandates. State and local are the levels at which fluoridation decisions are made, not at the federal level.
I’m just curious….are these arguments those that you would seriously attempt to make in court?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill
“Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.”
I have several serious problems with your comment.
First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both dentistry and public health.
Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.
I didn’t say anything about trusting dead scientists on this issue. I thought it obvious why I supplied the names of some illustrious members of the Royal Society.
It was illustrative of the caliber of the membership of the Society.
Arguably, in fact strongly arguably, the finest scientific minds on planet Earth. Not just anybody is admitted to the Royal Society. And to be a Fellow you have to have achieved something. Something significant.
Spokespeople for The Royal Society are, I assume, fully cognisant with its standing and wouldn’t just issue any old opinion on behalf of the society. They’d take any such task seriously. Truly. They’d use sources that can be trusted to provide the best possible information. The same applies for the Surgeon General in the USA when that office issues a position statement.
In NZ we have the Royal Society of New Zealand, established in the 19th Century, modeled on and linked to The Royal Society (London), the UK’s national academy of science.
You don’t trust the opinions of such bodies.
Well, that’s not surprising.
It’s to be expected. But it doesn’t carry much weight.
It’s you versus the world’s scientific community.
If your position is correct, the balance of scientific data and opinion will shift to reflect your position.
But essentially, you are currently claiming the scientific community is incompetent or mendacious in willfully distorting the state of the science.
Please take this on board:
Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.
You hinted at your take on reality with assertion that the CDC takes marching orders from ADA.
You can’t win that way.
The modern scientific arena is designed to eradicate the possibility of the science taking “marching orders’ from anybody.
LikeLike
html code fail
following links should have been included above
Click to access D%20Skegg%20-%20Fluoridation%20statement.pdf
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/about/who/
LikeLike
The motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in verba
which means “take no ones word for it”, more or less
LikeLike
Yes Andy, very good of you to bring that up.
The motto Implies that it is better to put weight on experiment and evidence over assertion but it’s worth observing that “one” is also singular. Modern scientific processes allow for the development of a consensus opinion on the state of many scientific subjects.
LikeLike
Chris, Evidence (and awareness) of dodgy premises is suggested/indicated by a plethora (good word that) of even more questionable and improbable subsidiary hypotheses. The Pre Copernicans called it “epi-cycling”. Stu.
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
Maybe the whole charade is a marketing ploy for bottled water?
Shock horror? Recall Big Tobacco.
LikeLike
I would be more concerned with the cynical marketing of infant formula in poor communities that don’t even have clean water let alone the resources or understanding to sterilise bottles. Nancy Schepper- Hughes study of Brazilian shanty towns attributed a 40% infant mortality rate ( google it). If your keen on sleepless night read that.
LikeLike
Cedric. And Dr. Strangelove!
Your onto it.
LikeLike
Jamesrobertdeal!
Get a life!
LikeLike
Ken. How can “probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent” be true if “probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent”?
LikeLike
Says it all Steve. I’d just refuse to be baited into dashing about dealing to grass fires when one decent helicopter load of water (fluoridated) would do the trick.
LikeLike
But Steve fluoride remembers!
Don’t forget BO posts on homeopathy sites. There’s your psychological motivation. If it is intrinsically “evil” them it cannot be tolerated to any degree. Salem Massachusetts and all that.
LikeLike
Indulging in a bit if psychotherapy I would suggest absolutism (fundamentalism) is the operative principle here. Science is intrinsically consequentialist. Fundamentalism ain’t isn’t!
LikeLike
Ken,
You asked, “Where did you get that 50% from Bill?” Excellent question.
About 50 posts back it was brought up here as a ball park number. I believe it was NRC 2006, Kathleen Thiessen a member of the committee, who did one of the best jobs as of that date on total exposure. Obviously there is a tremendous variation between individuals, but for most, based on my memory, between 40% to 70% of total exposure comes from water. The 50% number is easy for approximation. Obviously wide individual variations.
The increase in total exposure is one of my biggest concerns. Note the increase in dental fluorosis. And further, individual fluoridated water consumption is down, but dental fluorosis increases. Why? Other sources are providing more fluoride. And some of those other sources are rather important, such as toothpaste, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, etc. But as long as many are ingesting too much fluoride from water, these other uses of fluoride must be more closely controlled to avoid excess exposure.
Ken, you further raised a very important point. “Philosophically probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent. . . . As you say we usually don’t know what we a wrong about – however, we can develop levels of confidence sufficient to use what we know. And it is really naive to suggest we do nothing just in case we might be wrong.”
I fully agree with your balanced public health reasoned philosophy. And when we find something is “wrong” to some extent for some high risk individuals, would it not be best to at least put a notice on the package of caution?
I agree, everything has risk and we should not sit by and do nothing in the face of highly contagious lethal diseases. Dental caries is not highly contagious or lethal.
What happens when public health officials have their reputations on the line and have to promote something which later is seen to be wrong? The theory becomes locked in concrete. Note the Tuskegee experiment. 30 years before it was stopped, treatments were known, yet the US Public Health Services and CDC continued the barbaric experiment for decades, leaving men, women and children to become infected and sick and die. Oh, yes, for the greater good some are sacrificed. The experiment was started just before fluoridation.
Total exposure and the variation of fluoride ingestion from all sources is the main reason I am pushing hard for studies, like those mostly done in China, India and other countries, where serum and urine fluoride are measured. Estimates based on assumptions is not good scientific measurements. We need and can measure individual serum fluoride.
The main issues which changed my mind on fluoridation were:
A. Total exposure is increasing. More and more fluoride is being used in other places increasing total exposure. Who reviews total exposure from all sources and starts to reduce excess exposure? No one. Governments are fragmented with no one looking at the big picture. The suggestion of possibly lowering concentration of fluoride in water to 0.7 ppm, is in part recognition that total exposure is constantly increasing. Most logical to reduce fluoride in water because other sources of fluoride have additional benefits, such as toothpaste, pesticides, medications, post-harvest fumigants, lubricants, teflon, freon, clothes, Scotchguard, etc. etc. When fluoridation started, no increase in dental fluorosis was expected. Then they said 10% increase. Then they said 20% increase. Now we have 41% of children with dental fluorosis. Do we want 100% to have dental fluorosis?
B. Benefit of fluoridation. Without one single prospective RCT, which could be done, we are left with lower quality studies. I wish I could post graphs here so you could see the trends. Countries with our without fluoridated water or/and fluoridated salt all have similar low levels of dental caries. Same for states and counties. No common cause variation with fluoridation. No public health benefit can be seen.
However, I personally was 100% convinced I could see the benefit of fluoride in my patients. Teeth look harder, shinier. So it was a struggle to accept and understand that fluoridation of water no longer provided dental health benefit, certainly little or no life time dental health benefit. Some lowering of caries if confounding problems are ignored. Not a lowering of dental expenses, not fewer dentists in fluoridated communities, no evidence at the community wide level of benefit. Forgot who said, “the success of a public health measure must be measured in the community at large.”
C. Harm from excess fluoride ingestion. There is not dispute, too much fluoride increases health risks.
D. Ethics. Is giving everyone fluoride, even when they are highly chemically sensitive to fluoride or ingesting too much from other sources, when other options are available, ethically reasonable?
For me, brains are more important than teeth. I can fix teeth, no one can fix IQ.
LikeLike
Richard,
I have to work this week and will not have time to post much. Please provide a link or name of scientific paper on the fluoridation of water which is the scientific foundation for the Royal Societies position on fluoridation.
It will take me time to review their supporting documentation, but well worth the time if you so recommend.
Thank you,
Bill
LikeLike
Bill, this discussion is wondering and people are loading track. When I asked about the 50% I was referring to you claim “Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.”
My comment was philosophical and really had nothing to do with with what you have in your reply. Except, of course, that anti-fluoride activists are find of spouting things we were supposed have got wrong in the past to “prove” science is wrong about fluoride.
I know it is extremely naive but it is the sort of “folk wisdom” we often get from anti-science people.
>
LikeLike
The Royal Society NZ’s statement is self explanatory.
Click to access D%20Skegg%20-%20Fluoridation%20statement.pdf
LikeLike
Yes Ken. That hoary old argument about past errors is frequently deployed when criticism must be resisted at all costs. This is delving into Philosophy of Science 301 but modern scientific realism distinguishes between (a) reality and, (b) knowledge claims about it. The later endorses fallibalism. A knowledge claim must be consistent, explain the phenomenon, accurately predict and not beg any questions.
Accordingly science considers the weight of evidence from a plurality of perspectives and disciplines. AGW is a good example. The history of science is replete with theories involving extended causal chains that accurately predict and achieve outcomes. Refinements of course are likely often due to technological developments and more precise measurements. Notoriously people who have an a’priori principle to defend at all costs always resort to overblown pronouncements on doubt and uncertainty.
LikeLike
12-1-13
Dr. Slott says that fluorosilicic acid does not leach lead. He cites a study by Urbansky. Read it here: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/cr/pubs/rrbansky_schockawwa_ac2000.PDF.
Professor Sauerheber, response to Dr. Slott is this:
The claim by Slott that fluorosilicic acid materials cannot leach lead from lead based plumbing is based on a paper he references by Urbansky.
Click to access rrbansky_schockawwa_ac2000.PDF
That paper describes chemical calculations that attempt to discredit the studies of Masters and Coplan, but the calculations merely determine the concentrations of lead and silicate and fluoride that would need to exist in order to cause lead complexes or precipitates to form. This of course is interesting but please understand that lead complexes are not necessary to form in order for flurosilicic acid materials to leach lead.
Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.
Lead based plumbing typically has lead salts on surfaces that dissolve in the presence of acids. Some strong acids do not dissolve lead well.
Silicic acid, although a weak acid, dissolves lead. It has a high dissociation constant, meaning that it takes a great amount of alkalinizer to neutralize it. The amount of alkalizer which neutralizes fluorosilicic acid is not sufficient to neutralize silicic acid.
So silicic acid at neutral pH will displace lead from most of these salts, including lead bisulfate, lead biphosphate, and lead bicarbonate. The products are lead ion and silicate ions.
Of course added flurosilicic acid levels are not high enough to produce lead silicate precipitates, but so what? The point is that silicic acid can dissolve lead form lead salts and this is the most plausible mechanism that explains the detailed studies of Masters and Coplan indicating increase in lead ion levels in water and in blood of consumers after fluorosilicic acid treatment.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. Chemistry
http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/silicic-acid-2
***
Urbansky was wrong. That is clear. Read more about the FACT that lead concentrations, both lead concentrations in water and in blood – whatever the mechanism – is higher when water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.
The fluoridationists lose on this argument, so they have to take the backup position that the increase in lead caused by fluorosilicic acid is not enough to worry about. In Everett 10% of homes have up to around 50 ppb lead in first draw water. When Tacoma stopped fluoridating because of a water shortage, lead levels dropped almost in half. They went back up when fluoridation was restarted. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/tacoma.
You have to stop ignoring the science which would show fluoridation as harmful to health.
You have to find your way out of the maze and quit blocking the exits with journal articles which do not address the right issue.
James http://www.fluoride-class-action.com
LikeLike
James, I find Sauerheber’s comments on the breakdown products of fluorosilicic acid naive. Silicic acid would only have transitory existence at neutral pHs and olimerisation processes lead to polymerisation and eventually precipitation of silica. His comments smack of an attempt to use simplified chemistry to justify a claim which has actually been shown wrong.
LikeLike
Please explain at greater length. There are some missing word and some errors in grammar. Please address Dr. Sauerheber’s statements point by point as he does those of Urbansky.
LikeLike
I am not going to get into all the issues around this – my intention was just to point out that arguments relying on the persistence of a monomeric silicic acid just do not correspond to the real world where polymerisation processes occur at neutral pHs. Hopefully I have already corrected my typos.
LikeLike
Jamesrobertdeal.
“Will water fluoridation result in pipe corrosion or increased lead in drinking water?
Water fluoridation will not increase water corrosion or cause lead to leach (dissolve) from pipes and household plumbing fixtures. Although lead in public drinking water is typically found to be very low or is below laboratory detection, there are locations where old lead pipes, solder, or plumbing fixtures in old homes may experience leaching of lead into water. This is principally a problem in some older homes because newer homes have been constructed in accordance with new plumbing standards that prohibit the use of lead in plumbing pipes and fixtures. Ask your local water utility system if there have been problems with higher lead levels in water from older homes in your community. Claims by some that fluoride might result in increased lead leaching from pipes and fixtures has not been substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/additives.htm
Principally because the fluoride is in ionic form particularly at the approved concentrations.
But if you are desperate to make a point in spite of the laws of chemistry you will identify lead in some domestic water somewhere and attribute it to fluoride. Women have been burned at the stake or stoned to death on that sort of reasoning, even in contemporary times.
LikeLike
Stuart,
There is lead in water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid in addition to any naturally occurring lead. The extra amount is the lead which Mosaic, Lucier, Cargill, or Simplot admit on their certificates of analysis is present. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/simplot-certificate-of-analysis-everett-wa-8-24-11.pdf.
NSF says some batches when diluted produce drinking water contain up to 1.1 ppb after dilution. Are you ready to certify that this is safe?
A separate issue is the lead leached from plumbing. That is in addition to the lead from the scrubber liquor. You seem to be okay if people living in older houses get lead poisoned. Only a few will be poisoned, and they are poor.
You say newer homes do not have lead plumbing and so are not at risk. Not necessarily, because brass in new faucets is typically 8% lead – except in California – and copper pipes are often welded together with lead-copper solder..
You rely unquestioningly on the CDC web site. Read the journal articles yourself, and get back to me. The CDC is just wrong on this one. And this is after the CDC warns that no level is safe for pregnant women. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/LeadandPregnancy2010.pdf?source=govdelivery.
Lead is especially harmful to fetuses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665421/
Do you write off pregnant women and fetuses too?
NSF also admits arsenic is present in some batches at up to 1.6 ppb after dilution. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it. Do you claim this is safe?
LikeLike
Here’s the final ruling link from April 2012, where the plaintiff’s suit again the MWDSC was dismissed: Ruling:
http://ia601202.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourt..
.
LikeLike
Sorry, I have reposted, but it doesn’t go to the document when I click on the link that I have in my file. But I can give Ian the final conclusion:
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiffs wish, they may file an amended complaint within fourteen days after this order is electronically docketed. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 10, 2012
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
And Bill, you might note that Judge Sammartino is a United States District Judge. Wouldn’t you agree this ruling involves Federal jurisdiction?
(Bill says, “You have taken those court cases out of context”. I ask, What does out of context mean?)
From the American Dental Association’s Fluoridation Facts, page 47:
QUESTION 51.
Has the legality of water fluoridation been upheld by the courts?
Answer.
yes. Fluoridation has been thoroughly tested in the United States’ court system, and found to be a proper means of furthering public health and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be
unlawful. Moreover, fluoridation has been clearly held not to be an unconstitutional invasion of religious freedom or other individual rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. And while cases decided primarily on procedural grounds have been won and lost by both pro and anti fluoridation interests, to ADA’s knowledge no final ruling in any of those cases has found fluoridation to be anything but safe and effective.
“No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful.
The highest courts of more than a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.”
325
Fact.
During the last sixty years, the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems. Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.
324
In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s mandatory fluoridation law, culminating 16 years of court action at a variety of judicial levels.
326
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases thirteen times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.
325
It has been the position of the American courts that a significant government interest in the health and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.
333
Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation
ordinances are a deprivation of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
325,327
In reviewing the legal aspects of fluoridation, the courts have dealt with this concern by ruling that: (1) fluoride is a nutrient, not a medication, and is present naturally in the environment; (2) no one is forced to drink fluoridated water as alternative sources are available; and (3) in cases where a person believes that fluoridation interferes with religious beliefs, there is a difference between the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to practice beliefs, which may be restricted in the public’s interest.
328,329
LikeLike
James.
I’m not endorsing anything (except fluoride at appropriate concentrations). I am simply quoting the relevant authorities. I haven’t the time resources or expertise to personally check every possible environmental threat to my well being. Society would grind to a halt if that was necessary. The overwhelming majority of scientists and public servants are not hell bent on inflicting harm. It sometimes happens out of ignorance or carelessness. The problems in most societies have nothing to do with fluoridated water in fact it is plausible it is a sign of a caring community but not of course if you think the world is continually threatened by evil agencies.
Most of the problems from lead exposure among the general population came from motor vehicle exhaust ( leaded petrol) and lead based paint. .45ppm hardly constitutes a problem (according to the EPA). There are plenty of people in the US who want to discredit them of course. The persistence of lead in the environment stems from historical ignorance. Such things cannot be rectified overnight. There is probably more lead in your garden than in your drinking water.
LikeLike
That’s right Kurt just as there is a difference between the principle of free speech and displaying and emailing pornographic images willy nilly.
LikeLike
James Robert Deal – I don’t propose approving your last comment. It is simply the article you have posted on your own web site titled The Fluoridationists.
This is not a good faith contribution to the discussion here, but an attempt to discredit the discussion. Anyone interested can read the article on your web site and comment on it there. Discussion of it here would just be as diversion.
LikeLike
James. Just because I don’t read the journal articles you recommend doesn’t mean I don’t read journal articles. I restrict my reading to official sites and peer reviewed material that acknowledges the well established laws of chemistry. I also have more faith in studies on local adjacent populations that have much in common bar the variable under study. The US and China being heavily industrialised nations have many sources of genuinely toxic contaminants. Fluoride should be the least of your worries.
LikeLike
Kurt “out of context” means framing it in ways that doesn’t deliver the desired prescribed interpretation!
LikeLike
I like the little avatar you have given me Ken. It sums up my exasperation perfectly.
LikeLike
Mr Deal thinks that my reporting his role as as anti vaccination advocate is smearing him.
Displays a surprising self awareness.
LikeLike
Hi jamesrobertdeal,
I had a chuckle when I saw your…. web site
http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/the-fluoridationists
You quoted me in your first example;
“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb”
This is a real question. Seriously. And it goes to the heart of why many people can and do abdicate their resources (or crudely put, invest their “trust”) with the scientific community instead of a fringe minority.
Some of us have got to work you know…
This is a question which you haven’t the courtesy to reply to. It is a variation of Richard’s timeless question;
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
“Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.”
Elegant.
No one person has even attempted to answer it.
(51) I will invite you again to answer it. And Bill.
And any person out there who supports the anti fluoridation stance.
My attempt was not to try and make you feel like a clown.
You, like Bill, choose not to answer simple and clear questions.
Instead, you ignore them, and deflect the issue by having a self imposed pity party.
Again…see line 51 and have a crack…go on, I know you want to…
LikeLike
Christopher. I’m flattered to find myself pilloried in the same blog. That’s alright.
I content myself by reminding my self of the instructive legacy of Charles Dawson (Piltdown hoaxer) and Sir Richard Owen, the supreme egoist and plagiarist who “lied for God”. To give our friends their due, they are probably sincere. Sincerely promoting a questionable ethical principle masquerading as questionable science.
LikeLike
Christopher on Mr Deals site is the following beauty that links fluoride with Sarin nerve gas. Is this tenuous “guilt by association” thesis sincere or a cynical move to sell the water filters and books he lists?
“So in the West, we can drink it, bathe in it, brush our teeth with it, be told to take it for our health, we can spray it on our growing food, incorporate it in to building materials, paint in on wooden doors, window frames, furniture – in Syria it is “poison gas” and “nerve gas.””
LikeLiked by 1 person
So in the West, we can drink it, bathe blah, blah….it is poison gas…
Yes.
That’s right.
People drink poison gas.
Derp.
LikeLike
Christopher asks:
“This is a question which you haven’t the courtesy to reply to. It is a variation of Richard’s timeless question;
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
“Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.”
Dear Christopher,
I think I have covered this. Agencies got set up with all good intentions. But big corporations wanted to be let off easy, and so they went to work through lobbyists and donations to politicians and got “their people” appointed to the agencies, such as Michael Taylor, Mr. Monsanto, heading up the FDA branch that approves GMO crops and food. In the EPA there is a split between EPA administrators and EPA scientists. The scientists oppose fluoridation and even sued the administrators. The CDC is split too. Fluoridation policy is run out of one office made up of a bunch of administrative dentists while the rest of the CDC looks the other way. The CDC scientists post articles which admit that 41% of the kids have some degree of fluorosis, with 12.% of it being noticeable and embarrassing. The CDC scientists post articles which say that the effect of fluoridation is primarily topical and not systemic and that the effect is post-eruption of the teeth, which means that it does not help to give fluoride to kids. Yet CDC administrators still promote fluoridation.
And you have the EPA administrators setting up the NSF and offloading fluoridation approval to NSF while the EPA scientists wrote the NSF 60 requirements that fluoridation materials to be approved go through 20 tox studies, which they haven’t, which makes all fluoridation materials non- compliant with NSF 60.
Like everything in our country there is political division in the agencies just as in Congress. Big corporations do not want to lose their cash flow and so they hire the lobbyists and fund the politicians.
So that is the mechanism. You should not be so trusting of our agencies. I would say one of the mechanisms that allows fluoridationists to remain trapped in their maze is that the exits from the maze are blocked. One of the blocking mechanisms is the belief that we should trust our agency heads and that if fluoridation were not good it would have been halted.
It was as scam from the beginning. It was a profitable scam, and so FDA and EPA never developed the will to stop it.
Cargill and Mosaic donate heavily to medical and dental schools, which follow the pro-fluoridation line.
So ;think for yourself. Don’t let the agency heads think for you.
LikeLike
Richard says:
“Mr Deal thinks that my reporting his role as as anti vaccination advocate is smearing him. Displays a surprising self awareness.”
I am not opposed to all vaccination. Vaccination helped eliminate small pox.
My discussion of vaccination is found primarily on my other web site.
See: http://www.whattoserveagoddess.com/alleged-vaccination-hoax/.
See: http://www.whattoserveagoddess.com/vaccination/
Vaccination is similar to fluoridation in that it has been turned into a giant cash flow engine for big companies. They won complete immunity from liability. So they crank out new vaccines without full safety testing. And kids have serious reactions. The Vaccine Court has paid out $2 billion to victims, and most victims get turned away.
The flu vaccine is only around 1% effective against the current strains of flu.
Most of the kids who came down with whooping cough last year had already been fully vaccinated against it.
Hear this discussion on vaccines: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/03/hepatitis-b-vaccines-at-birth.aspx.
Giving newborn babies the hepatitis B vaccine is truly bizzare, as it is a disease spread typically through sharing needles to mainline illegal drugs.
I question giving immunity from liability to the vaccine manufacturers. This immunity has made them reckless. Manufacturers do not have to run the same extensive studies they do for other drugs – because their liability is limited through a no-fault insurance and compensation system.
There are children who have reactions to vaccines, and if they are, they cannot in most cases sue in regular courts. They must file a claim with the Vaccine Court, which has paid out some $2 billion during its existence.
But the Vaccine Court does not fairly compensate those harmed. There is no jury. Those who receive compensation must often agree to keep silent about the settlement. Appeal to regular courts is difficult and rare.
We are giving children 45 vaccinations before they go to school. My concern is about too many insufficiently tested vaccines too soon, before the child immune system is developed.
Like fluoridation, vaccination has become an industry which has developed a large cash flow and large profits. Once that happens our regulatory agencies receive pressure to accommodate such profitable schemes.
Read what Dr. Blaylock has to say about vaccines and fluoridation:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=692C627F9325ABCFFF676E4A0DAF86BD
Nevertheless, vaccination is off topic for this discussion. Your bringing it up is a smear attempt because you and a lot of people totally trust their agencies and the big corporations they shill for and have absolute faith in all vaccinations.
The validity of my arguments regarding fluoridation should not be tested by what I post regarding vaccination.
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
LikeLike
Bill: ” Dental caries is not highly contagious or lethal.”
You are way out of touch if you don’t realize the overwhelming problem we have in this country with untreated dental disease. Dental caries most certainly can and has been lethal. Diamonte Driver in 2007? Life-threatening infection from untreated dental decay is rampant. To attempt to trivialize this problem is to add to it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Mr. Deal
Sorry, but I’ll take the findings of peer-reviewed scientific study by Urbansky and Schock over the opinion of your assumedly paid “Scientific Consultant” Richard Sauerhaber who cites your “fluoride-class-action” website as his support.
“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(I1) IN POTABLE WATER? HIEXAFLUOROSILICATE AND FLUORIDE EQUILIBRIA IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION*
EDWARD T. URBANSKY and MICHAEL R.SCHOCK
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Additionally, from the EPA:
“According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, corrosion is not related to fluoride.”
——-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, Dental Disease Prevention Activity. Water Fluoridation: A Manual for Engineers and Technicians. Atlanta, GA, CDC, September 1986.
In regard to Masters and Coplan:
.” . . Recent reports [Masters and Coplan] that purport to link certain water fluoridating agents, such as fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate, to human lead uptake are inconsistent with accepted scientific knowledge. The authors of those reports fail to identify or account for these inconsistencies, and mainly argue on the basis of speculation stated without proof as fact. The sampling scheme employed in the studies is entirely unrelated to any credible statistically-based study design to identify drinking water lead and fluo ride exposure as a significant source of blood lead in the individuals. The authors use aggregated data unrelated in space and time and then attempt to selectively apply gross statistical techniques that do not include any of thousands of other possible water quality or exposure variables which could show similar levels of correlation utterly by accident.”
—Urbansky ET, Schock MR. Can fluoridation affect lead(II) in potable water? Hexafluorosilicate and fluoride equilibria in aqueous solution. Int J Environ Studies. 2000;57:597-637
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Mr. Deal
Obviously you don’t understand that NSF Standard 60 certification begins at the tap, as this the water which will be ingested. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant, including lead, in water from the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements.
It is comical that you claim the CDC to be wrong while citing only your “fluoride-class-action Scientific Consultant”, Richard Sauerhaber, as your only support.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Slott,
You said:
Obviously you don’t understand that NSF Standard 60 certification begins at the tap, as this the water which will be ingested. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant, including lead, in water from the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements.
Response:
I do understand NSF 60. In addition to the 10% margin requirement, NSF 60 requires that 20 tox studies be done. They are not being done. Thus the NSF 60 stamp on certificates of analysis are fraudulent. Using the EPA MCL’s instead of tox studies is inappropriate because MCLs are not authorizations to add any contaminant to water. They are requirements that contaminants be removed if they exceed the MCL. There is nothing comical about this fraudulent consumer protection act violation.
James http://www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
You said;
“In your opinion, if not the manufacturer of the product, then who’s responsibility is it to ensure the product is safe and effective? Who has jurisdiction? Please provide your evidence without attacking me personally.”
I don’t believe that municipal town water could be fairly called a “product”.
However, where I live in Christchurch New Zealand, The Ministry of Health, through the provision of standards ensures that an appropriate infrastructure is present to support the provision of clean and safe drinking-water to communities. This is enforced through Health (Drinking-Water) Amendment Act 2007.
In addition and probably more relevant to the discussion here, there are three organisations that are involved with the provision of safe drinking-water to any particular community, one at the local level, one regional and one at the National level.
This is not my opinion, this is the legal framework.
Does this answer your questions?
LikeLike
James Deal,
Two questions:
JD: “Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.”
JJ: Question #1: Who has measured silicic acid at the tap? The CDC National Fluoridation Engineer, Kip Duchon, like his predecessors, state that none of the hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) remains intact at the tap. HFSA dissociates into fluoride ion, silica, and hydrogen ion. He also states that you can not measure something that doesn’t exist at the tap. Please provide the literature that clearly demonstrates silicic acid is present at the tap.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm
JD: Question #2: It appears that you do not have an objection to the fluoride ion in water. If this is correct, then would fluoridation with another fluoridating agent get your nod of approval?
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist, Palm Harbor (Pinellas County), Florida
LikeLike
Mr. Deal
Nice fairy tale about the myriad of conspiracies occurring within the EPA and CDC. Again….this is the type of nonsense you would argue in court?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
James Deal,
1. NSF Standard 60 language is clear. The standard states that if an EPA MCL exists for a contaminant, then toxicological tests are not required:
Fluoride
“As noted above, NSF/ANSI Standard 60 requires, when available, that the US EPA MCL be used to determine the acceptable level for a chemical of interest. The EPA MCL for fluoride ion in water is 4 mg/L.”
2. Additionally, NSF Standard 60 addresses your previous post:
JD: “Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.”
Silicate
“Fluorosilicates do not require a toxicological assessment specifically for the fluorosilicate ion, because measurable levels of this ion do not exist in potable water at the fluoride concentrations and pH levels typical of public drinking water.”
Click to access NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf
Your argument against NSF Standard 60 isn’t holding water. The most recent example of this was in Clarksburg, West Virginia, where you unsuccessfully attempted to convince their Water Board to stop using HFSA as it was against West Virginia State Law. The Water Board unanimously tabled your request:
JD: ““In advance of our meeting tomorrow, I am
sending you this letter to point out that fluoridation is illegal under West Virginia law.””
http://www.connect-clarksburg.com/connect.cfm?func=view§ion=News&item=Debate-Continues-Against-Flouride-in-Clarksburg-Water—Water-Board-Hears-from-National-Experts-2518
It didn’t work there, and it hasn’t worked elsewhere. Your claim is baseless.
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,
Let me once again attempt to enlighten you on Standard 60. This Standard only applies to water from the tap. Presumedly the “tox studies” to which you refer would be in regard to HFA. However, HFA does not exist at the tap, thus is not subject to tox testing requirements. The trace levels of contaminants easily fall short of the NSF certification maximum of 10% EPA MCL. So, unless you are demanding tox studies be done on fluoride ions which are identical to those already existing in water, there is nothing to test.
“More than 40 states have laws or regulations requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a concentration of less than ten percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maximum use level. The EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no known health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples from public water systems to be well below these levels.”
—-Reeves TG. Current technology on the engineering aspects of water fluoridation. Paper presented at National Fluoridation Summit, September 8, 2000 Sacramento, CA.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
You said;
“Instead of trying to put e down as stupid, provide your position and science.”
My position is that I believe 0.7ppm concentration of F in municipal town water supplies reduce the incidence of dental caries among the population. At these levels, it is safe and causes no harm to the community.
As to your request to provide science, I think you need to be more specific; what do you mean here?
But just to kick things off, how about we jump right into a subject.
It has to do with some claims that YOU have recently made.
You said;
“Plotting the 50 US states on the percent of whole state population fluoridated and mental retardation reported in 1992.
As the percent of the populations on fluoridated water increases a tripling of mental retardation is found.
Consistent with half a standard deviation drop in IQ, about 8 IQ points and consistent with Choi’ study from Harvard.”
I don’t understand your sentence construction, and therefore what you are saying, let alone meaning!
Are you relying on the Choi study from Harvard to support your apparent belief that fluoride triples, in your words, mental retardation?
LikeLike
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
Smell it.
Take a deep whiff.
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Penn and Teller – Bullsh*t – Vaccinations
LikeLike
Now look, Cedric. Give the guy a break. After all, he did cite Mercola and NaturalNews as his sources of information on vaccines. Who could be any more authoritative than that?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
His methodology is somehow…strangely familiar.
I suppose I could go to “X” blog and get my information on science from from some no-name blog hosted by some guy in their parent’s basement.
I could.
That would be stupid though.
Fortunately, I have a certain minimum standard on where I get my science information on any scientific top.
I don’t mess with the wannabees. I just go straight to the top.
So, for example, if I wanted to find out about smoking and if it was dangerous or not…I’d check out the Surgeon General and every single medical community on the planet.
It would be strange not to.
As a methodologies go, it’s kickass. It works really well for for all sorts of scientific issues.
Test it for yourself.
The validity of my arguments regarding fluoridation should not be tested by what I post regarding vaccination.
No, it really should be tested.
It’s about methodology. Look it up. The same methodology that would allow a person to prop up their own biases and preconceptions so that they could deny the scientific consensus on one issue is…perfect…for any other issue.
It’s the same playbook.
Not happy with evolution? Why look! Here’s a blog. It tells you what you want to hear.
Not happy with HIV being linked to AIDS?
Why look! Here’s a blog. It tells you what you want to hear.
Same diff for all the rest.
If your methodogy is essentially the same as nutjob “X” for some other denialist thing, then you need to back up and reconsider your position.
Yet look deeper at that blog that you found. It’s doesn’t matter which one. Strip away the identifying labels and they all blend seemlessly into one other.
It’s all Galileo Gambits and quote-mining and promoting isolated contrarians with some Phd or other and book promotions and conspiracy thinking all wrapped up in the cloak of the stalwart crusader who refuses to let go of the TROOTH in the face of “them”. It’s set up to make you feel that you have inside knowledge. You see it. You understand it all better than they do…and one day, one fine day…you’ll show ’em. History will prove you right. Any day now. Very soon. Just you wait! They’ll see.
No. It’s not happening.
There are two ways to challenge the scientific consensus.
One way gets you a Nobel Prize.
The other way leads you to a blog peddling a book.
In science, it’s put up or shut up.
Science Under Attack BBC Horizon Documentary
LikeLike
Hi jamesrobertdeal
Thank you for your reply
You did not give me a scientific mechanism. You gave me a (conspiracy) theory.
Don’t take this in a pejorative way – conspiracies do occur – but I would hazard to guess just not as often as you like to think.
You gave me a long history peppered with many unsubstantiated facts (which I do not know whether true or not).
Could you please distil it down into a short few pithy sentences, omitting irrelevant details? – parsimony is key to any mechanism, especially on the scale that you are operating.
However, one glaring problem that I see is you centre your theory on the USA.
I understand you live there, however how do you account for pro-fluoridation positions held in other countries, for example NZ?
LikeLike
Mr Deal
(after loads of wriggling as to his opposition yet non-opposition to vaccination)
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
Voila, both topics neatly juxtaposed by Mr deal in the same paragraph.
Which of course underscores the relevance of noting Mr Deal’s role in advocating against the mainstream medical position on vaccination.
It’s all science denial. The nay-saying of the scientific and medical consensus. Anti-fluoridation, anti-vaccination, HIV-denial.
As Cedric tirelessly notes, they all sing from the same score sheet.
LikeLike
Ken, You said,
“Bill, this discussion is wondering and people are loading track. When I asked about the 50% I was referring to you claim “Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.””
Sorry, I misunderstood which 50% you were talking about. The 50% is a phrase to indicate that we must never assume what we know and what we are doing is actually correct. Perhaps another way of saying, “science is not stagnant.” For example, I no longer use about 90% of the dental materials I used in school. Constant change, constant improvements.
You also said,
“I know it is extremely naive but it is the sort of “folk wisdom” we often get from anti-science people.”
Who are the anti-science people you are referring to? Fluoridation is “folk wisdom” “tradition” “myth” “government policy without oversight” and FDA CDER calls it an “unapproved, misbranded, adulterated and illegal drug” which for political reasons they are deferring regulatory action.
LikeLike
Hi Bill, (and ANY other anti-fluoridationist)
Hi Bill, (and ANY other anti-fluoridationist)
On the topic of “Science”
I would appreciate your take on this and ANY other anti- fluoridationist)
This is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.
“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”
Well, what about this study….
“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”
Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Apr;36(2):e83-8. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
I found this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22189446/ which provides a link to the full study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22189446/
Where in the conclusion….
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
On the topic of “Science”
I would appreciate your take on this and ANY other anti- fluoridationist)
This is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.
“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”
Well, what about this study….
“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”
Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Apr;36(2):e83-8. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
I found this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22189446/ which provides a link to the full study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22189446/
Where they said in the conclusion….
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
LikeLike
weird…do not know how my last post doubled up???????
apologies for any confusion
LikeLike
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
Research follows the money, its expensive so no one is going to research something thats not funded
If your Pro then your looking for the good effects in this case perfect or near perfect teeth Gov’ts are protective of policy & traditionally hard to change especially laws in this case which have been around for a very long time, the companies with supply contracts will fund research they believe will help sales (crazy if they didn’t). and any other associations/individuals which would lose a benefit if its not going their way
If you looking for Con (anti) the your looking at what else does it do …but tell me who funds this, a few outside mainstream, some individuals or associations who have a different need or perhaps a different system/product which works better
All this adds bias to what science does first
Now if we have 41% dental fluorsis in the US of A according to the supporters of F this could see a lot more funding by gov’t and the dental associations who would like see the better good for their communities
as to why there is this startlely increase of Fluorsis
LikeLike
Where oh where to begin….
Ian,
It is clear that you don’t understand the scientific method.
It has been explained on this blog ad-nauseum.
But, to shed some light on your dim viewpoint.
Bias IS a well-recognised element of scientific research.
Scientists know this.
Really, it’s their job. They design their experiments with this in mind.
These designs are published in their research papers; it’s called the Method section.
In the Discussion section of these studies, they discuss these biases along with other confounding factors.
Really.
You can read it for yourself and make you mind up as to the respective study validity, reliability or strength of their conclusions. Just pick up any reputable journal and take a peek.
But you don’t need to worry yourself with all that complimacated stuff because this study (if any good) will be subjected to peer review.
If it is poor research, it should get ripped to shreds.
If it is good research, it may be published in a reputable scientific journal.
No guarantees though, if you want one of those, buy a toaster……..(And NO I am not opening a door for conspiracy theorists)
But here’s a question for you Ian. You appear to think there is 41% of fluorosis in the US (admittedly your last sentences are difficult to decipher)
How do you know this and how do you trust this to be true?
LikeLike
I’m no longer interested in the manifest content of the shrieking from these idiots. What interests me more is their incorrigibility. Must be something to do with the culture (US) which is strongly relativistic and litigious. It’s like a weird scene from some eschatological movie ( and given the bible fundamentalism in the US who would be surprised – already!). Reality is determined by courts of law, or philosophical dispute, or theological minutiae. Meantime glaciers are melting, storms are increasing and sea levels rise.
“fluorosis is in the increase” says one of them. “IQs are plummeting” says another. These people are like robots that react to whatever contradicts their programmed paranoia. This is work for sociologists and psychologists me thinks. I don’t watch TV at all now (didn’t bother converting to digital) partly because of the raving paranoia coming out of the US.
If I could get my hands on them I’d hold them under water until their legs stopped thrashing!
LikeLike
PS. Surreal is the appropriate description of the world these people inhabit.
LikeLike
Thanks Dr. Johnny Johnson for giving us the real Deal!
LikeLike
Ian
Research follows the money, its expensive so no one is going to research something thats not funded
that sounds depressingly familiar
You can play switch the labels: Health and tobacco research , HIV research, evolution. fluoridation, vaccination research, climate change research.
Their opponents all level the same charge.
Welcome to the machine, you have entered the alternative reality of the conspiracy theory.
(….and, off topic.
Ian, the spelling of the contracted form of “you are” is “you’re”, not “your”.
This information supplied in good faith.)
LikeLike
Ian – you need an I phone mate. They correct spelling though sometimes substitute an unintended word.
Ian – re the financial masters theory. It does happen but not as ubiquitous as you seem to think. Researchers particularly those funded by public money cannot afford to lose credibility. An in any case, the peer review system where your research is scrutinised by people not of your choosing generally exposes trumped up conclusions. Even this web site pretty much exposes the dodgy claims. That’s why some correspondents don’t like us looking at their other web sites.
LikeLike
Stuart,
PS. Surreal is the appropriate description of the world these people inhabit.
Think that’s bad? visit this alternative universe
(These are the cranks who took NIWA to court claiming they faked NZ temperature record. Judging from the volume of the squealing it must be getting close to the time they have to pay costs awarded against them.)
LikeLike
It has been explained on this blog ad-nauseum.
Yep.
I (and others) repeat myself. I don’t really have a choice. I continuously refer to the same basic videos explaining genuine skepticism and I am forever taking one PRATT talking point from science denial topic “A” and switching it around with science denial topic “B” to show that they are merely two peas in a pod.
It’s always the same playbook.
I do it because of people like Ian.
I already know the arguments. All of the regulars already know the arguments. Plus they know exactly how I’m going to respond to them.
(and I’m sure it gets boring for them just as it does for me.)
It’s just once more around on the merry-go-round.
But then there’s people like Ian.
He’s not going to take the time to read and review all the previous relevent threads.
He’s got no idea how many times other people have used the EXACT SAME RATIONALISATIONS to turn a blind eye on the scientific consensus on “X”.
Which forces me and others to repeat themselves.
That’s the nature of PRATT’s.
That’s the nature of arguing with a science denier who has discovered some blog on the internet that is telling him what he wants to hear.
That’s the nature of conspiracy thinking.
Research follows the money, its expensive so no one is going to research something thats not funded
Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.
(Index to Creationist Claims)
LikeLike
(These are the cranks who took NIWA to court claiming they faked NZ temperature record. Judging from the volume of the squealing it must be getting close to the time they have to pay costs awarded against them.)
Take a good hard look at that blog.
Notice anything, you anti-fluoridationists out there?
Read the articles. Look at the way they frame their arguments. Check out their comments.
Identify the basic methodology they are using to get their information and prop up their ideology.
See it?
Yep. You’re looking into a mirror. They are doing what you are doing.
Don’t like it? Tough.
Reality can suck like that.
You see, your bog-standard climate denier and you have the same basic problem.
It’s you versus the scientific consensus.
For many, many decades now.
Really hard to go up against it.
So if you are not willing to accept all the work that went into creating that scientific consensus on “X”, you have two choices:
1) Roll up your sleeves and earn a Nobel Prize.
2) Comment on a blog run by some guy in his mother’s basement and buy his vanity-press novel.
Guess which one happens more often?
Creationists and Climate Skeptics Unite
LikeLike
Richard Christie.
I visited the “alternative universe” and even left an unwelcome posting which seems to have evaporated. An in-group echo chamber I would say.
LikeLike
Christopher Atkinson can you even use google since you are such nice fellow correcting my English (thanks for that) here’s the link http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
that must be one of those crank sites you were talking about……
I think its one of your trusted sites
Hence I would think that this would require a lot more investigation
The ADA could help fund it with the help of the gov’t……………I mean they wont want effect all those children going forward I guess we just have to wait another 60 years to see if the reduction works
Golly when do think funding will be announced for appropriate testing even you would want that to protect your children & grand kids
LikeLike
To understand the MO of these dudes you need to know a but about Edward Louis Bernays, nephew of Signalman Freud the well known Austrian railway worker. Nephew Ted, a disillusioned character defined public relations and “knowledge” in general as propaganda.
This idea influenced both left and right wing activism and flourished in recent decades among academic humanities “intellectuals”. Hence their contempt for scientific realism and sociological theories of knowledge. Such is their haste to transform society one way or another they forget (ex hypothesis) the rule also applies to them. But if the universe is Godless propaganda (or style – Oscar Wilde and me) is everything.
LikeLike
Stuart, great comment on CCG!
LikeLike
(I’m banned there, Ken also, I believe)
LikeLike
… and endorse sociological theories of knowledge” I meant to say.
LikeLike
Preview and editing function would be handy!
LikeLike
Hi Ian –
I think you are getting me confused with Richard as he corrected your poor spelling, not me.
Your English? I’m sure you haven’t spoken to Richard, so the appropriate term would be spelling.
While we are here though, your punctuation and grammar could do with a little tweaking – – but C’est la vie. I won’t get all high and mighty, mine’s not too hot either!
Also, I think you intended to say “affect” not “effect” – a common mistake
But at least I can make sense of it! So not to worry
Nor did I call you a crank.
Again, get it right.
Regarding referencing and citations.
You didn’t, so don’t get your Y fronts in a bunch when asked for.
It’s rude not include these when you make a claim, as a matter of course.
Thank you for providing a reference this time.
You said; “I think its one of your trusted sites”.
No, I don’t own it you silly sausage! But the CDC does provide reputable publications.
You on the other hand YOU are not trustworthy. No, No,No.
You are dishonest.
Why?
Because you claimed that this publication showed that their was 41% of fluorosis in the USA.
It doesn’t, not even close.
One click and hey presto
Right there in bold on page One was;
“Less than one-quarter of persons aged 6-49 had dental fluorosis”
Last time I looked 25 was lower than 41. Severe fluorosis measured less than 1%
The only result involving 41% related to a very small age range…you wouldn’t be selectively cherry picking numbers to misrepresent your position now would you?
This is utterly disgraceful.
LikeLike
Selective interpretation by both
cause aren’t we talking about children when your an adult you don’t get it
Prevalence of dental fluorosis was higher among younger persons and ranged from 41% among adolescents aged 12-15
I ignored “9% among adults aged 40-49.” adults do drop the average…..so mate I can see you cherry pick
Shame on you I can see the future generations don’t matter…
& yes I realized some is what pro camp call cosmetic but the total is clear in the age group 12-15 clearly stated at 41% for all types of dental fluorosis
Can you please confirm if its cosmetic no dental treatment required so there is no cost to the public purse or mine
Mate I would happily donate some funds to get this matter clarified by research in which F in the diet is controlled and all affects are studied and all biochemical pathways are reviewed fully so our kids & their kids are protected from dental fluorosis at the very least
LikeLike
Ian
In regard to CDC/Beltrain-Aguilar, that “41% of all children” is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.
The percentage of that 3.8% who may desire cosmetic treatment does not override the dental decay preventing benefit to the whole population. The cosmetics alone from dental decay are far worse than any from moderate dental fluorosis, and this not even take into account the amount of pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection that is prevented by water fluoridation. The cost savings of preventing the need for restoration of decayed teeth completely dwarfs any expenses involved in cosmetic treatment of the very few with moderate fluorosis who may desire to have it.
Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian
“…so our kids and their kids are protected from dental fluorosis at the very least”
Yes, once our children are “protected” from the life-threatening, facial deforming, oral health destructive, mind numbing, financially devastating, major disease of mild to very mild dental fluorosis, we would then be free to tackle the next item on the list of fluoridation horrors….hangnail.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
…here’s the link (give the link to the CDC) that must be one of those crank sites you were talking about…
It’s amazing. They always do that. Trying to enlist on their side an authoritative source. As if it will somehow…help them.
Climate deniers do it too. The exact same thing. Only they have to do it with NASA or the IPCC.
It doesn’t work.
It’s still them versus the scientific consensus. It’s not going to magically change due to some lonely graph/paragraph/diagram/photo/statistic creatively lifted from a mainstream science source.
Ian? The CDC supports water fluoridation. We know this.
You should to.
Trust me when I say that they have a website in plain English and they spell it out nice and clear.
(No. Cancel that. Check it for yourself. It’s worth a read.)
For you to go hunting for something and go “Ooogity-Boogity” and play make-believe that you are in sync with the CDC smacks of desperation.
If you have to contort yourself that badly, then it speaks badly of your integrity.
Whatever you think it is you are doing, you’re doing it wrong.
Shame on you.
…cause aren’t we talking about children when your an adult you don’t…
It’s “you’re” nor “your”.
Grammer: It’s the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you’re shit.
LikeLike
(I’m banned there, Ken also, I believe)
Ah, so you guys are with the band?
LikeLike
According to Figure 3 Change in dental fluorosis prevalence among childen aged 12-15………..
Dental Fluorosis1986-1987 1999-2004 Difference
Unaffected 47.1 39.6 7.5 decrease
Questionable 30.2 19.7 10.5 decrease
Very Mild 17.2 28.5 11.3 increase
Mild 4.1 8.6 4.5 increase (>100%)
Moderate &
Severe 1.3 3.6 2.3 increase (>170%)
Note the increase in the dental when its expressed as a percentage for the last 2 categories…& your busy reassuring me that F is good in water…may well be if that’s the only source, but with the hugh increase in the worst forms of D F
All of this to save part of a tooth
As for the science being right.
There have been plenty of examples in history showing that in time science changes over time & knowledge increases
LikeLike
All of this from the CDC report we have been discussing doesn’t keep formatting just refer to the table Fig 3
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
LikeLike
Ian, if you are incapable of learning and applying a simple grammatical device in order to make your comments easily readable, why should we expect you to understand or be corrected on anything that is more complicated, such as your miscomprehended statistics and interpretation of scientific papers.
Hopeless cause.
LikeLike
Ian
Sure, you can twist data to conform to any belief you wish. What else is new?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
As for the science being right.
There have been plenty of examples in history showing that in time science changes over time & knowledge increases
Come up with that all by yourself Ian?
Clever lad
LikeLike
so Steve you think I twisted data, nope the data shows that there was an increase in Moderate & Severe from 1.3 % to 3.6% (fig 3 CDC report) the difference is a massive 176.9% increase (that’s 2.3/1.3*100)
Obviously the CDC & the Dental association don’t consider this to be an statistically significant but as a precaution the issue could be given little more research
Nothing new here Steve old data it 2013 we should be looking at a follow up study in the same age group to see if there any changes or is it getting worse Hope there is one in the pipe line.
Thanks Richard wasn’t sure you understood, I certainly didn’t come up with this, history is a wonderful thing but only if we have a open mind
LikeLike
Ian. Forget the blog sites. Just go and look in people’s mouths. Ask ordinary people who live in fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. Intelligent sensible people I mean, not beer swilling thickoes in truck stops.
LikeLike
It’s important to deal with the denial theories on a point by point basis but unless you control the mass media or large chunks of it like Rupert Murdoch you have to deal with them one at a time (like Marathon). The protagonists (Ian and Trevor) are expendable but the message is repeated, and repeated, and repeated. This can be discouraging because you don’t know when it will end.
At the same time it is worthwhile to look at the larger context which is all about manipulating public perceptions. I’ve already mentioned Edward Bernays and his equating knowledge with propaganda. His 1928 book “Propaganda” became the foundation document of Madison Avenue. We saw the culture in the recent TV drama series “Mad Men” which incidentally reglamourised smoking seductively as only period pieces can do. One wonders how much tobacco money went into it. The kind of irony Madison Avenue execs love.
Anyway, following this trend came Berger and Luckman’s “The Social Construction of Reality” (1966) which fell on fertile soil among left wing intellectuals who had a stake in subverting the current hegemony. This was popular because in the spirit of the times there were and are plenty of hegemonies that need subverting. White, male, heterosexual, Anglo Saxon, Protestant, Big Capital, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Banking, intellectuals, science, the Military Industrial Complex, the list is endless.
The problem with this theory is it revolves on an equivocation. It equivocates between the world (reality) and perceptions of it. It has a linguistic formulation too which claims reality is created by language. This is (literally) tailor made for the intellectually lazy. Thus dinosaurs did not exist until we gave them a name “dinosaur”. (Philosophers rightly call this the Use/Mention confusion). This linguistic approach resonates in many cultures and is very ancient. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1-3). There are various ways of interpreting this but “word” is variously interpreted as idea, thought or logos (reason). Ancient Chinese cosmology had similar formulations. The ancients in their ignorance thought language was unique to humans, their distinguishing characteristic. Many even philosophers, still do. An interesting aside is the evolution of daughter languages which corresponds apparently to shared interests. Language joins insiders and excludes outsiders. Berger and Luckman’s theory was effectively challenged by philosopher John Searle’s “The Construction of Social Reality”(1995).
If you look at the dates you will notice the generation that corresponds to Berger and Luckman’s book. The postwar generation. The university students of that era were strongly influenced by Marxist ideas from teachers who graduated in the 20s and 30s. With the failure of Marxist theory (May 68 and all that) to overturn capitalism, academics with these intellectual tools chose other more limited targets. Many abandoned theory completely (Postmodernists) and others “discovered capitalism” (If you can’t beat ’em join ’em!).
Alan Bloom famously challenged these developments “The Closing of the American Mind” (1987). He argued the youth of the day were distracted from authentic politics by the pursuit of spurious freedoms that make the rich richer. It is he claimed, the direct result of philosophical nihilism. This thinking percolates down into uncritical minds as a scepticism to any kind of authority including scientific, political, moral and philosophical authority. All that is left is psychological egoism exemplified by Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko and mad fringe theories posturing as science.
Here endeth the lesson.
LikeLike
Like I said, Ian. Data can be twisted to conform to any belief you wish. 1.3% to 3.6%? By all means, feel free to consider that “massive” if that will help your rationalization.
As far as “giving the issue a little more research”…….there is not but so much research you can do on a minuscule few parts per million of fluoride ions identical to those you’ve been consuming since birth. But, again, feel free. In the meantime, there is certainly not sufficient reason to deprive a population the benefits of water fluoridation while you do your further research.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
It’s a conspiracy to flood the West with cheap steel dentures made in China!
LikeLike
There have been plenty of examples in history showing that in time science changes over time & knowledge increases…therefore all the scientific communities on the planet are wrong but you are right.
Gosh, Ian. Nobody has ever tried that gambit before. It’s oh so very new.
Not.
Who could ever imagine an anti-vaxxer or a climate denier or a creationist saying the exact same thing?
…history is a wonderful thing but only if we have a open mind… therefore all the scientific communities are wrong and you are right.
(shakes head sadly)
What are you going to do next? Inform us that “science doesn’t know everything”?
LikeLike
Steve at what level of DF would you recommend research there is an overall uptrend in all categories in the 1986-2004 period
Will a reduction of F in water or, could it be due to F from another source (toothpaste, fumigates), failure to educate people to use F free water in infant formula
as a lot bottled water is consumed what affect does this have on F consumption/exposure
Ask ordinary people you say what a great idea…they obviously know a lot & can be 100% responsible for what ever they do,…they are so well educated
Cedric science sees all, knows all but too view understand it
open your mind to science & may it bring the next revelation
the point about science is it should always be subject to review and new hypothesis’
Who could ever imagine an anti-vaxxer or a climate denier or a creationist saying the exact same thing?
Your the only one here saying it so which are you ???????????
LikeLike
Cedric science sees all, knows all but too view understand…
You must have really hated your English teacher in school.
Why are you writing like that?
Your the only one here saying it so which are you.
What does that even mean?
LikeLike
Ian is a bot.
Random phrase generator.
LikeLike
I believe you can buy one at Deepak Chopra’s shop.
LikeLike
Ian, water is fluoridated at the miniscule level of 0.7 ppm. There have been no adverse effects proven attributable to it in its entire 68 year history. Conjecture and personal opinion will never cease. Opponents attempting to invoke the. “Precautionary Principle” until “more is known” are simply cloaking, in this concept, their efforts to have water fluoridation permanently abandoned. The one thing they do understand about fluoridation is that they can keep coming up with unsubstantiated claims ad infinitum. This is why demanding proof of a negative is not valid science.
I have 32 years experience in providing dental care to patients, in my own state and 6 others. My experience and and understanding of the science of fluoridation, tell me that dental fluorosis is not an issue with this public health initiative. There are drastically more problems created by the dental decay that could be prevented than by the benign, nearly undetectable effects of dental fluorosis which may be associated with fluoridated water.
There is a difference between not having “an open mind” and having the knowledge to understand what is relevant and important to an issue, and what is not.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian! Coffee stains teeth so what?
LikeLike
Cedric! At least your avator looks intelligent or aristocratic. Ken and I look decidedly mystified.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t change my avatar for the world.
However, I’ve been doing some research on Ian’s writing style and I think Richard make be closer to the truth than even he suspects.
Ian is not human. That’s the easy part. Nobody out there writes like he does. However, he is not a Chopra Random Phrase Generator.
A careful examination of the writing style reveals the shocking truth.
Ian is a lolcat.
LikeLike
Hello Ian,
“Cedric science sees all, knows all but too view understand it
open your mind to science & may it bring the next revelation
the point about science is it should always be subject to review and new hypothesis’”
Ian again I find it hard to decipher your text.
A simple comma.
Is it Cedric [S]cience sees all, knows all? (quite an cool name I think!)
or
Cedric, science sees all, knows all?
I guess the latter.
You think science see’s all and knows all?
I will take another stab in the dark and guess that this is a weak attempt at sarcasm. Therefore implying Cedric thinks he knows everything and you are giving him a lesson on the scientific method!
In addition:
The correct spelling is “to” not “too”
What do you mean by revelation? The biblical meaning?
You still insist on using “your” instead of “you’re” !!
Punctuation!!
I find your contributions very confusing and difficult to understand.
Is this intentional? A cunning, clever diversion maybe…
It’s hard to believe this is from a real person.
Stuart’s historical/sociological discussion particularly interesting and apt.
“This is (literally) tailor made for the intellectually lazy.”
I would also add stupid and fanatical
For constancy and for some, perhaps a little irony, it appears I can’t tell my arse from my elbow when I use the word there/their. Apologies.
LikeLike
Is it Cedric [S]cience sees all, knows all? (quite an cool name I think!)
Don’t tempt me. That is a rather cool name.
😉
But back to Ian.
There’s also his small problem of gaily abandoning the convention of starting sentence with a capital letter.
It’s a bit hit-and-miss.
Why would anybody do that? I just don’t get it.
Unless…they had paws. Then it makes sense.
LikeLike
(ah typos)
*sentences
LikeLike
Steve as I pointed out DF is increasing as whole. This means more children (3.6% of them in particular, as the rest are merely cosmetic effects ) are being exposed to higher levels of F.
My questions…when do we alter their exposure to F in someway?
You say
I have 32 years experience in providing dental care to patients, in my own state and 6 others. My experience and and understanding of the science of fluoridation, tell me that dental fluorosis is not an issue with this public health initiative. There are drastically more problems created by the dental decay that could be prevented than by the benign, nearly undetectable effects of dental fluorosis which may be associated with fluoridated water.
Unfortunately our personal experiences aren’t scientific data, and the No of caries through this period as fallen in both F & un F areas
LikeLike
Stuart Coffee stains teeth so what?
That your defence for increased DF thank you very scientific
LikeLike
Thanks Cedric & Chris
I can see your are english professors and have nothing to add to this debate.
I can see you have not joined the new age where convention in language is a thing of the past. You can see I’m trying to catch up
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FText_messaging&ei=OaOfUrzxNsueiQeak4CIDw&usg=AFQjCNG-2iVzxwXmmzj9EBdOVR0VmuOg1w&bvm=bv.57155469,d.aGc
LikeLike
Ian (or Gus), those beautiful white teeth you see on TV and magazines are not normal or even natural.
LikeLike
Hi Ian,
Great to see you’re still plugging away.
No, I am not an English Professor.
I would have thought MY grammatical mistakes may have given that away.
I suppose you are inferring I am getting on a high horse and looking down on you?
No – we all make typo’s, small errors etc (I also recognise and apologise when I do cock up)
I’m not bothered in the slightest with those – I am (and did tell you) that I was concerned with your MEANING.
I am tired of asking what you mean as it is often unclear and sometimes incomprehensible.
I would have thought that this was clear.
I know you read what I write.
The issue is whether you understand what I write – obviously not.
Not only are you unable to express your opinions clearly, you are unable to understand others.
Do you think you are adding anything meaningful to this discussion?
LikeLike
No – we all make typo’s, small errors etc (I also recognise and apologise when I do cock up)
waiting… 🙂
LikeLike
Hey! Does the U.S. get a vote in this? If so, on behalf of my countrymen I cast my vote for Cedric Science. That’s far more cool than Cedric, science…
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian all language, communication and social interaction requires shared understanding. That requires conventions. Even texting requires conventions you )&67! See what I mean? Try listening or participating in a rock band or orchestra that doesn’t use musical convention. Try driving down the road at night in on the wrong side of the road with your head and tail lights reversed as some are reported to have done around Ruatoria. You obviously think without convention is the same as unconventional, something celebrated by some people under certain circumstances. There’s nothing really going on up there is there Ian? Just an empty vessel containing a weak spluttering candle that desperately seizes on the ephemeral. It’s a mistake to puff your self up by adopting a poorly understood pseudoscientific cause. You haven’t the education or critical faculties to judge whether you are backing the right horse or even articulate the arguments (spurious) coherently. I don’t enjoy saying this but I avoid phoneys when I can, and when I cant I let rip. I have no reason to think you aren’t a descent bloke when you being authentic. There a a lot of people like you in blog land Ian. The anonymity allows (so you think) the opportunity to pretend to be something you aren’t. In your poor excuse for cleverness you think you are fooling (stuck up) people. You are only fooling yourself and everyone else can see it. Many are too polite to say so. In principle your behaviour is not that different from cyber bullying and trafficking of obscene material. It’s a form of abuse and a gross insult to people who ordinarily would treat you respectfully. That’s one of the conventions of human intercourse (no I don’t mean sexual).
I suggest you toddle off and stick to one of those mutual congratulatory echo chambers you get most of your (ill understood) material from. Better still get outside and take the dog for a walk or mow the lawns.
LikeLike
Better still put your mother on and I’ll giver some advice!
LikeLike
(Typo) give her some advice!
LikeLike
If any of our kids performed we would just shunt them out the back door and ignore them until they apologised. Must have worked. One Phd, one pending and a major in philosophy. All outstanding in their own ways.
LikeLike
Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that
If you truly have an issue of understanding on the points just say so
Obviously your theory on the anti F brigade also applies to to the pro camp as well What was it bait & switch?
Hey you are pro F are you not?
Its been so long since I have seen a post referring to the matter in hand
As for putting my mother on …she died but you couldn’t know that could you ?
In fact she would be embarrassed by your criticism!
Enough said
Time to move back to the subject which was????????
I think everybody has forgotten
LikeLike
Ian, you asked my opinion on dental fluorosis. That’s what I gave you. I didn’t present it as scientific fact. Mild dental fluorosis is simply a benign effect that antifluoridationists are trumpeting as a major disorder for the lack of anything else that can be credibly attached to fluoride at 0.7 ppm. Once that becomes clear, they will move down the list to something else. It’s endless.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian, this is the last time I will engage with you.
Hey you are pro F are you not?
Answer has already been provided but just for you:
Pro scientific method. Pro community health.
I take seriously and concur with the pro-fluoridation position statements as provided by essentially every medical, community health and scientific organisation on the planet.
Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that
Translation: “I have no intention of applying myself to improve my performance in this area”.
From that I draw my own conclusion.
LikeLike
Nobody has forgotten Ian,
I think that was supposed to be an apology Richard
One of those weasely [sic], conniving “I’ll meet you halfway” kind of non apologies.
“If you truly have an issue of understanding on the points just say so”
I did, several times.
As the inimitable Ann Robinson said, “You are the weakest link, Goodbye”
LikeLike
Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that…..
So we just have to put up with wasting our time trying to guess what you mean because you’re too lazy and incompetent to do better?
Hmm, no.
Asking you to write coherent sentences in basic English is being very reasonable. If you can’t do that then we can’t communicate. You are wasting our time. It’s more than a little bit rude.
We shouldn’t have to nursemaid you.
This isn’t remedial school.
I take seriously and concur with the pro-fluoridation position statements as provided by essentially every medical, community health and scientific organisation on the planet.
Seconded.
Fluoridation is a non-issue. It’s been a non-issue for many decades.
There is no reason for us to reject the scientific consensus.
Certainly not because of someone on the internet.
It’s like the moon landings.
We concur that the moon landings happened just like every scientific community on the planet. NASA and all the rest are a reliable source of information.
Some guy showing up on the internet with some aged talking point about flags waving in a vaccuum is not going to be enough to make us change our position.
Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.
Goodbye.
Baloney Detection Kit, (Dr. Michael Shermer)
LikeLike
Christopher,
I’ve been busy and just scrolled by past a bunch of posts which did not make sense and came to yours where you said,
his is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.
“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”
Well, what about this study….
“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”
Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Apr;36(2):e83-8. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
I found this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22189446/ which provides a link to the full study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22189446/
Where they said in the conclusion….
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
Christopher.
If you carefully review the difference between the studies, you will immediately see that the two studies are not comparing the same things. Douglas has a vested interest in protecting fluoridation and fluoride. So what is the easiest way to discredit someone else’s research? Water down the numbers. The solution to the harm is dilution. Dilute the numbers and they no longer become statistically significant. Douglas did not look at specific age groups for risk but hid those ages of most risk among all children and adolescence.
A clever devious dishonest method of perpetuating the fluoride is safe myth.
LikeLike
Oh, come on, Bill. Drop the conspiracy nonsense. You’re far too knowledgeable on this issue to attempt to fall back on that kind of argument.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your reply.
I think you have mistaken Levy et al (and associated political conspiracies) for Douglass.
The idea that Levy et al was trying to discredit the earlier Bassin study based on personal politics is therefore invalid.
So what other reason’s would you have not to accept this study?
Irrespective of differing design/method, how do you refute the conclusion that;
“…suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
LikeLike
Why are you even polite to this crank?
LikeLike
Interesting article from Journal of the American Dental
Association , Volume 23, page 568, Ap ril, 1936 , titled
Fluorine In Relation To Bone And Tooth Development
by Floyd DeEDS, Ph.D
Worth a read
LikeLike
Ian
Maybe we should at least stick to scientific articles written AFTER World War II ?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Or, wait a sec, Ian. Is this that “new, emerging science” of which antifluoridationists speak so frequently?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ian, if that article was, in your opinion, interesting, why could you not comment on it? And if it is worth a read what about a link? Where did you go find it in line?
Of have you just been searching to through old journals in a library?
LikeLike
Why am I polite Stuart?
Bloody good question. Considering Bill chooses to ignore simple questions, and those he does answer he makes simple mistakes.
As for the arguments put forward by the “anti’s”, I am continually amazed at the truly stupid stupid responses.
There is one mindless idiot who, with such dogged persistence makes Forrest Gump look like Bertrand Russell – he insists reviewing pre WW2 material!
There are those who perhaps like the above example know what they say is stupid, but insist on “stirring the pot”, not realising at how sad it is to spend so much time and effort dredging up rubbish to validate their own stupidity.
There are countless examples of simple questions being ignored.
There are countless examples of answered questions being repeatedly asked
There are Conspiracy Theorists of all flavour and strength.
There are armchair internet experts who know better than cutting edge scientists.
There is a very small vocal minority of “experts” that either subscribe to a conspiracy viewpoint or have a vested interest in selling books, public speaking, subscriptions etc
These experts dodge simple questions; making errors that are so stupid these must be surely intentional.
None of the “experts” have been able to answer Richard’s Mechanism for Failure or my “So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
None.
NONE.
Why? Because there is no systemic failure to be found.
The very nature of the scientific method guards against this.
If we put the fluoride issue on the backburner for a second and just weigh up the level of crazy and stupid on each side…hey, you probably wouldn’t even need to weigh them…just a fleeting glance at the quantities would suffice.
I’m sure you could make a reasonably accurate estimate as to “clinical” significance.
And if you spent time to cleverly design an experiment, you could probably wheedle out those sneaky Machiavellian co-determinants of crazy and stupid.
Those of you in the “Anti” camp, can’t you see this?
Or do you simply say to yourself “Nope, not me….you’re bound to get a few of them in any group?”
But…it is more than just a few isn’t it?
C’mon now…..be honest….
LikeLike
Reminds me of those sad grotesquely overweight people who think they look glamourous in Nike trainers.
LikeLike
God! It’s enough to make one pine for the socialist Albanian politics of a previous generation. What’s the point in giving free speech to ijiuts?
LikeLike
Idjits!
LikeLike
Christopher,
You say I ignore simple questions. Please ask them again, I quit following this thread because it wandered off topic.
And please provide evidence rather than simply calling people stupid.
LikeLike
Ken’s latest response to Paul’s questions is fascinating to me.
Ken’s major argument is that Paul brings up too many points and apparently Ken does not have time to respond to all of them, i.e. Gish gallop of arguments and questions. I think obvious scientific questions and points were presented and proponents using police powers to fluoridate everyone need to have answers rather than hide from the questions. Evading basic fundamental questions of science is not Gish gallop.
Just two questions Ken. I hope one question does not consist of Gish gallop.
To a more fundamental concern. Why do good scientists disagree? Probably many reasons. In the fluoridation controversy, may I suggest good scientists put different weight on different points.
1. Jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction, charged by Law, to approve the safety and efficacy of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease?
a. Sodium Fluoride (silicofluorides) fit within the classification of highly toxic substances, poison (less than 50 mg/Kg body weight causes violent sickness or death). Of course we dilute fluoride, but laws do not reflect dilution but intent of use. Jurisdiction for legal oversight of substances intended to prevent disease are determined by law. All state and federal laws I have seen in every country I have looked, define toxic substances such as poisons in similar ways. By law, highly toxic poisons such as fluoride are exempt from poison laws based on intent of use as pesticide or drug when regulated under pesticide or drug laws. No other exemptions are listed that I’ve seen. None. Either fluoridation is a drug or poison or pesticide. No exception.
b. No dispute, fluoride is added with the intent to prevent dental caries. The Federal agency (FDA CDER) in charge of drugs agrees fluoride when used with the intent to prevent disease, is a drug. Federal agency in charge of water (EPA in the USA) agrees they have no jurisdiction and are prohibited by law from adding fluoride to water with the intent to prevent disease in man or animals.
Ken or anyone, please explain who you think has jurisdiction over the safety and efficacy of substances used with the intent to prevent disease in humans. Please provide a law, letter, or communication from that regulatory agency that they have jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.
To circumvent laws in the USA, proponents of fluoridation turn to the least scientifically aware, the non scientific elected officials and voters to determine the complex scientific controversy over safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Makes no legal, scientific or ethical sense.
LikeLike
Bill, you ignore the fact that Connett and his crowd have never had legal success arguing their claim the fluoride is a drug. I commented on this in my precious article and pointed out your use of this arguments was a matter of semantics and handwaving. The fact that you have no legal success to point to is very telling.
As for Gish gallop – it is a tactical approach used by creationists and similar. They have no intention if discussing any question in detail and love on to the next as fast as possible.
I think we have discussed a whole range of issues in this exchange. You have not pointed to anything I avoid.
I have to laugh at your claim that proponents of fluoridation “turn to the least scientifically aware.” Isn’t this exactly what Connett and his activist organisation are doing. Using cherry picked science to provide a sciency flavour to their claim? Don’t hey descend on clinics and water authorities with their pseudoscience? Are they not claim theta they are the experts when the even mixing up thinks like sodium fluoride and silica fluorides? And don’t they make use of referendums when they think it will go their way?
Experience surely shows your arguments do make legal sense – you never have success in the courts. As for scientific sense – well we are debating those aspects in this exchange. Paul made large diversions into irrelevant stuff in his last contribution, but I think people can and should make their own judgment. I have noticed that this exchange seems to be upsetting local anti-fluoridation activists no end. As for ethical sense – I have written quite a bit on the ethics of this question during the exchange. Unfortunately Paul’s concept of the ethics (and apparently your’s too) does not go beyond his obsession with fluoride as a drug. Something the courts have already ruled on.
>
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
Good to see you’re back.
Not good to see that you’re making mistakes again.
I won’t restate my questions….just scroll up a few posts for one of them. It’s not difficult.
But here is one I and several others have asked to no avail…
“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
As for evidence for stupid responses. There is plenty of evidence peppered throughout this blog. Don’t ask me to provide evidence, you can read.
Or do you endorse every stupid response here?
As for jurisdiction.
I have answered you before which authorities in NZ have jurisdiction and the relevant legislation. The fact that you ask again shows that you either not reading or intentionally ignoring what is written. Both options exhibit a high level of flippancy.
You seem to cling to the idea that Fluoride at .07ppm is a medicine. This definition is yours and is shared by many anti fluoridationists.
LikeLike
…It is not grounded in Law or science. It is grounded in ideology
LikeLike
Bill,
The EPA has complete regulatory authority over mineral additives to water. Whether you agree or not, the EPA has full jurisdiction over fluoride added to water at 0.7 ppm. That is a fact. If you have a problem with that, then go argue your case with the EPA.
You and Paul seem to be under the mistaken assumption that you may make your own laws, according to your own personal ideologies, and everyone should abide by your ” decision” that fluoride is a “drug”, because you say it is.
Again, the courts have made themselves clear on this. Your argument has been rejected time and time again. You don’t like their rulings so you simply attempt to paint the legal process as being “the least scientific”.
The fact is, that no matter how hard you and Paul wish for it to be a “drug”, fluoride at 0.7 ppm is just an ion identical to that ion which already exists in water. By your logic, our water is already “drugged”. If you demand extensive testing of the fluoride ion added with HFA, then you are demanding extensive testing of the same ion which humans have been ingesting in water since time began.
If you want to attempt this time worn argument yet once again in court, feel free. But, given that the courts have not been taken in by this antifluoridationist gambit before, I don’t like your chances. Other than that, unless you and Paul think you can somehow circumvent the legal process and redefine the law to your liking, you’ll just have to live with reality……adding a minuscule few parts per million more of a fluoride ion identical to that fluoride ion already existing in the water, does not magically turn it into a “drug” requiring totally unnecessary, extensive testing.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
As for Gish gallop – it is a tactical approach used by creationists and similar. They have no intention if discussing any question in detail and love on to the next as fast as possible.
Bill, the Gish Gallop is a debate tactic.
It’s well known and it’s very dishonest. Paul is guilty of it.
You don’t seem to be able to bring yourself to acknowledge that simple fact.
Ken has spelt it out nice and clear.
Evading basic fundamental questions of science is not Gish gallop.
Just two questions Ken. I hope one question does not consist of Gish gallop.
Pretending that you still don’t know what a Gish Gallop is will not help you.
A Gish Gallop is very easy to spot once you are aware of how the tactic works.
It’s not the same as “evading basic fundamental questions of science”.
There are even short and simple videos to help the general public understand what’s actually going on.
You can shove your fingers in your ears and go “LALALALALALALA” as much as you like but it won’t make Paul’s Gish Gallop magically go away.
Gish Gallop in 72 seconds
LikeLike
The internet is a wonderful thing.
You find all sorts of interesting stuff.
Bill, can I trust you?
Are you…sciencey?
You’ve done your research, right? And you have degrees. And you have a white doctor’s gown. Plus there’s all that dental equipment behind you lending you that air of authority. Also, I couldn’t help but notice the water flowing from taps as you were talking. That would only happen if you were telling the trooth.
The “won’t somebody think of the children” moment was a nice touch.
It’s a curious anomoly you’ve found.
Toothpaste.
Says it’s a drug right there on the back of the tube.
And that cup of water is simply filled with fluoride.
Yet “they” don’t protect the public from such a criminal act of putting toxins in our water.
Oh the shame of it.
(It’s a real shock, gasp, horror moment.)
GIven that you have discovered the anomoly that brings down the whole house of cards and anyone watching your example can quickly see the anomoly too….then what’s really going on with “them”?
What’s the mechanism?
Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap Water
LikeLike
Will Connett censure Dr Osmunson over the use of that first picture of
fluorosisgross decay?LikeLike
Actually , from the pic it looks as if the white areas have resisted decay, but I haven’t the expertise to judge.
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
you said;
“Of course we dilute fluoride, but laws do not reflect dilution but intent of use”
You are clearly wrong here.
Laws? What laws?
Be specific man. Drug laws? Food laws? Drinking Water laws? Underpant Laws?
I will help you out and in doing so show why you have made such a silly mistake.
I will use “Drugs” as an example.
Drugs are also regulated on the basis of harm. Many drugs are not regulated because they pose little or negligible harm. Dilution necessarily reduces the preponderance of harm.
For example, you are able to purchase and drink as many bottles of caffeinated coffee or coke as you like.
Alcohol is more harmful, therefore it is more regulated, as are many other substances.
But before I go on…are you wrong here Bill? Have you made yet another mistake? A mistake in the application of the Law maybe?
So…. let’s for a second pretend Bill gets his way and we say fluoridated water is a “drug” (ignoring the absurdities that this entails).
What evidence do you have to show that 0.7ppm fluoridate water is harmful?
You need to come up with some extraordinary evidence…it has been 68 years…
uh….before you start. Could I ask that you use mainstream peer reviewed scientific studies that show actual harm.
Not anecdotes
Nor any pre world war 2 studies
No secondary sources.
No pretend, made up harm
No irrelevant studies.
No disregarding relevant information
No pictures of Horses
No obfuscation
Should be simple for you. A man with lots of letters after his name and the world of experience behind you …go on, you can do it
LikeLike
To anyone out there bored enough to read this.
I would like to address aspects which relate to words and their definitions.
Ken has touched on this when he described the definition of fluoridated water as a “medicine” being semantic;
Connet responds;
“…surely he can concede that the purpose of fluoridation is to treat people as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink? And if he is willing to concede that then doesn’t treating people – at least in some countries – require that those treated have the right to informed consent to that treatment? This is not just about semantics it is about fundamental human rights”
Yet again, Connet pretends that 0.7ppm fluoridate water is a medicine.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Semantic’s are important….. if you want to use words.
And Connet is using words…isn’t he?
But…
Abracadabra….Fluoridated water is a Fish…therefore it must be regulated under the Fisheries Act 1996
or Hocus Pocus it’s a House so it must be regulated by the Resource Management Act 1991
Or perhaps it’s neither and should be regarded as what it is, so we should look at;
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116 is.
On appeal from the Court of Appeal, the Judicial Committee held that;
“The water of Lower Hutt is no doubt pure in its natural state but it is very deficient in one of the natural constituents normally to be found in water in most parts of the world. The addition of fluoride adds no impurity and the water remains not only water but pure water and it becomes a greatly improved and still natural water containing no foreign elements.”
As far as I am aware this remains binding precedent under NZ law.
If Connet, Bill or anyone else who thinks this is not correct please cite the relevant Statute or case law.
LikeLike
ChristopherAtkinson.
Perfecto!
LikeLike
Laws do not reflect intent of use, the regulate because of outcomes, harms.
So what’s the ” intent of use” Bill. Poison out “precious bodily fluids?”, “lower our IQs?”, “turn us into baby devouring communists?”, (an early version of this madness”, or a simple public health measure to minimise preventable tooth decay?
LikeLike
You fluoridationists amaze me.
You defend adding small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium – oh, and yes, a lot of fluorosilicic acid – to our water, which people will drink for their entire lives in any amount, regardless of any pre-existing health problems they may have. And you are saying that is absolutely safe for everyone. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.
The burden of proof is on you to prove all these chemicals working together are safe.
You fluoridationists defend fluoridating water with a toxic waste grade of fluoride even though there are pharmaceutical grade sources of fluoride available if you really want to consume it, such as getting a Luride prescription, or swallowing some of your toothpaste.
You fluoridationists defend a form or fluoride that leaches lead from pipes. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fl-toxins/lead.
And some of your are dentists!!! A dentist in his right mind will oppose drinking water fluoridation 1) because CDC and NRC say we are getting too much total fluoride – even if a little is good, and 2) if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.
And you champion this fluoridation fraud just so you can allegedly reduce caries by maybe 25% or 10% or maybe not at all? When there are other good ways to kill streptoccocus mutans, such as putting an antibiotic mouthwash in your Water Pick and killing those bacteria directly?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antibacterial+mouthwash
Yes, fluoride does kill bacteria, but so too does a sledge hammer. Would you use a sledge hammer on your teeth?
Fluoridation is quackery of the first order, down with tetraethyl lead, DDT, nuclear power, and Roundup. It operates like a true-believer religion. It is a big lie, a mass marketing fraud, a group hallucination. You guys are trapped in a maze where the exits are blocked by false beliefs.
And your response to anything that disagrees with your fluoride religion is mockery.
James at Fluoride Class Action
December 17, 2013
LikeLike
Attorney Deal
Yes, we all realize your financial interests in keeping this issue alive, with your constant references to your “class action” website. But, could you please at least do a little research on the issue from reliable sources before making a complete fool out of yourself with such a blatant display of ignorance of the facts of fluoridation? It’s hard to find one accurate statement in your ridiculous rant. You are supposedly a professional. Act like one.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Good Morning Ken,
Your failure to answer the question is not an answer and a stunning admission you don’t know or don’t want to admit who has jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. You and I have a right to determine the safety and efficacy of substances for ourselves. In this case someone is using police powers to force others to ingest fluoride. Who has that power and authority to determine whether the substance is scientifically safe and effective. In all other cases of substances used with the intent to treat/prevent disease in humans, the national drug regulatory agency has jurisdiction. And in all countries (that I’m aware of), the drug regulatory authorities have rejected the ingestion of fluoride for the prevention of caries because the science is incomplete. Not one prospective randomized controlled trial. And those probably could not be done because no human research authority would give an OK.
You fear the truth because fluoride is a highly toxic poison and Federal law, Congress and the FDA CDER (and Australian drug regulatory authority) have been consistent and clear that fluoride is a drug.
Several times courts have ruled fluoridation is not supported by science and not legal. Indeed, some state courts have supported fluoridation, but your claim all court cases have supported fluoridation is simply flawed. But then I am not a lawyer, so back to my question. Who has jurisdiction to determine the safety and efficacy of fluoridation? The CDC says not them. The EPA says not them. The FDA says they do and you apparently say they don’t.
Ken, what national regulatory agency has jurisdiction?
To your second point of Gish gallop debating tactic. Gish gallop, as you know, is used when there is not enough time to respond in an oral debate. Gish gallop does not apply to this situation. This is a written debate and there is no time limit. Your excuse and failure to respond to scientific points in writing by hide behind an oral debate tactic is simply bogus and shows a lack of scientific evidence. Evasion is not an answer.
So if there are too many points, lets reset the rules of this debate and narrow the topic to one of any one of the points of concern which have been raised. First is Jurisdiction. There are government agencies set up with policies and experts to determine efficacy and safety of substances. You simply ignore jurisdiction.
Then we need to answer:
“Total Fluoride Exposure.” How much fluoride are people ingesting and inhaling and exposed to? Total fluoride exposure range, high and low for individuals?
Then we need to determine how much total fluoride is optimal? In other words, how much are we getting and how much do we need? Then we need to determine what is safe?
I know, I know, you have not answered my first question of Jurisdiction and now I’m expanding and adding the second question of total exposure. Does two questions mean I’m another Gish galloper?
If two questions are too much, then lets go back to the first:
Ken, please fill in the blank: “The government agency for determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation is _________________.”
LikeLike
Hello Jamesrobertdeal,
You seem to pop in and out of reality –
Great to see you back. You seem a little upset!?
Perhaps you could finally answer my question…you know the one I asked you on 3rd December. I am particularly interested in how you think Big Business is able to percolate and coordinate such a globally successful conspiracy.
I have copied my previous question so you needn’t have the difficulty associated with scrolling up.
“Hi jamesrobertdeal
Thank you for your reply
You did not give me a scientific mechanism. You gave me a (conspiracy) theory.
Don’t take this in a pejorative way – conspiracies do occur – but I would hazard to guess just not as often as you like to think.
You gave me a long history peppered with many unsubstantiated facts (which I do not know whether true or not).
Could you please distil it down into a short few pithy sentences, omitting irrelevant details? – parsimony is key to any mechanism, especially on the scale that you are operating.
However, one glaring problem that I see is you centre your theory on the USA.
I understand you live there, however how do you account for pro-fluoridation positions held in other countries, for example NZ?”
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
It’s early in the morning here Bill, don’t get your panties all in a bunch.
Did you not read my post…it’s the one with my name on it just a few above yours…it should answer your questions.
I would love it if you could comment
LikeLike
Bill,
Somehow the facts seem not to be sinking in to you. So, let me reiterate them for you.
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS FULL JURISDICTION, OVERSIGHT AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER FLUORIDE ADDED TO WATER AT THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.
THE FDA HAS NO JURISDICTION OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER FLUORIDE ADDED TO WATER AT THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.
From page 1 of the 2006 NRC Report:
“Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is required to establish exposure standards for contaminants
in public drinking-water systems that might cause any adverse effects on
human health. These standards include the maximum contaminant level
goal (MCLG), the maximum contaminant level (MCL), and the secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL). The MCLG is a health goal set at a
concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected to occur and
the margins of safety are judged “adequate.” The MCL is the enforceable
standard that is set as close to the MCLG as possible, taking into consider-
ation other factors, such as treatment technology and costs. For some con-
taminants, EPA also establishes an SMCL, which is a guideline for managing drinking water for aesthetic, cosmetic, or technical effects.”
From page 2 of the 2006 NRC Report:
“On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate
independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of
2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect
children and others from adverse health effects. The committee was asked to consider the relative contribution of various fluoride sources (e.g., drinking water, food, dental-hygiene products) to total exposure. The committee was also asked to identify data gaps and to make recommendations for future research relevant to setting the MCLG and SMCL for fluoride.
Now, if the jurisdictional oversight and regulatory authority over water fluoridation is not to your liking, then you will need to address that with the EPA.
Now, if you want information on total daily fluoride intake from all sources, the CDC and the IOM have just what you need. Access those sites.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ok my queestion to you is what does the American agencies have to do with NZ?? we have our own laws and govt departments .No wonder you wont get an answer
LikeLike
Hi chris,
Bill has assured me he will accept both…but…
LikeLike
Bill,
You really seem to have a thing with the word Jurisdiction, as though it has magical powers.
To answer you YET AGAIN.
This will be the last time I repeat this for you.
In NZ, three organisations are concerned with the provision of safe and wholesome drinking-water to any particular community in New Zealand, one at the local level, one regional and one at the national level.
The Health (Drinking-Water) Amendment Act 2007 is the primary legislative tool that promotes adequate supplies of safe and wholesome drinking water from all drinking-water supplies.
Under this Act, you will find the relevant organizations responsible for public water supplies.
I have given you case law specific to fluoridated water. This may also be used as a primary source of law.
I will give you the case reference again;
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116
But back to your question.
“Jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction, charged by Law, to approve the safety and efficacy of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease?”
This sentence does not make sense in several ways.
1) “Charged by Law” is a redundancy and adds no meaning to this sentence. It does however indicate that you are attempting to make your question sound “legal” in a vain attempt at giving it added credibility. However it simply makes you look like an arse (ass).
2) Legislators, have the power to make laws under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (perhaps legislative supremacy in the USA?). With regard to laws involving “substances”, these Laws can be both prescriptive and proscriptive. Before a Law is enacted it may go through a consultative process whereby experts in the relevant field have an opportunity to comment on issues of safety and/or harm. Once it’s law….that’s it.
3) “…safety and efficacy of any substance “. The question is nonspecific. There are many substances that are regulated. Which ones do you mean? Again, look at the respective substance and the law surrounding its regulation. Regarding fluoridated water, I have cited you primary and authoritative case law directly on point. I can copy it again for you but I fear you will just pretend you haven’t seen it or pretend it is not relevant.
4) Stuart quite rightly hit the nail on the head. “Intent to prevent disease”.
You really don’t know what you are talking about do you? Substances are incapable of intent so I guess you mean the person administering them. Again you need to look at the substance and then look at the Law to see how it is regulated. Therein you may find the Holy Grail you oft seek.
So….quite apart from having an uncanny ability for constructing nonsensical sentences, it is my humble opinion Bill, that you don’t know your arse from your elbow when it comes to the Law.
You blunder around throwing words haphazardly about with confidence of charlatan and the precision of a drunk cabbage.
More worrying perhaps is that you persist with these errors despite these being shown to repeatedly and clearly.
It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is unable to learn from his mistakes.
Doh…
Or are you doing this on purpose?….(sinister drum roll)
LikeLike
that one was for Bill
LikeLike
Sorry, guys. Like every supremely arrogant American worth his salt, I forget from time to time that the sun doesn’t revolve around the United States. My comment to Bill was in regard to US law. However, you have him well covered with NZ jurisdictional law in regard to fluoridation.
Wteven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I find it very informative that you lend your experience/expertise.
The complexities in the USA are obviously greater,,, but when you boil the fluoridated water in either country it appears you still get a lot of hot air!
LikeLike
C’mon Bill
You had a go at Ken for not answering your questions toot sweet…
How ’bout you offer me the same courtesy I have afforded you
…and give me a detailed, clear and on point response to my questions…
LikeLike
In Canada’s justice system fluoride was ruled as “compulsory preventive medication” and was never appealed by the Government of Canada.
Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village), [1957] S.C.R. 569:
If the purpose of adding fluorides to drinking water is to prevent or reduce dental cavities, as Health Canada admits In response to Petition 299, those fluorides then become drugs or medication. This is not just an opinion but the basis for the Supreme Court of Canada judgment reached by justices J. Rand and J. Cartwright. Health Canada’s opinion on the nature and purpose of the fluorides added to drinking water does not seem sustainable in the least. The nature of the fluorides is determined by their purpose. If the purpose of adding those fluorides to drinking water were to treat the water to make it potable, they would not be drugs and would be legal as long as they met applicable American National Standards Institute/National Sanitation Foundation (ANSI/NSF) standards. However, this is by no means the case: their purpose is to prevent dental cavities. Justices J. Rand and J. Cartwright accordingly reached the following conclusion:
But it is not to promote the ordinary use of water as a physical requisite for the body that fluoridation is proposed. That process has a distinct and different purpose; it is not a means to an end of wholesome water for water’s function but to an end of a special health purpose for which a water supply is made use of as a means (p. 572).
Its purpose and effect are to cause the inhabitants of the metropolitan area, whether or not they wish to do so, to ingest daily small quantities of fluoride, in the expectation which appears to be supported by the evidence that this will render great numbers of them less susceptible to tooth decay. The water supply is made use of as a convenient means of effecting this purpose. In pith and substance the by-law relates not to the provision of a water supply but to the compulsory preventive medication of the inhabitants of the area (p. 580, emphasis added).
Fluoridation thus constitutes “compulsory preventive medication.” As this judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was never appealed by the Government of Canada, it must have force of law and, in our view, Health Canada’s opinion that fluorides added to drinking water are not drugs has no legal or judicial value.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_299C_e_35212.html
LikeLike
Bill, I think your question about “jurisdiction” has been adequately answered by others. It is not a question that interests me and seems to be a diversion.
However, you do say that several courts have ruled fluoridation not supported by science and nôt legal. Well, could you provide these instance please? With some sort of reference and link. So far I have been unable to find any so I await support for your claim with baited breath, hoping to learn something.
I think you should check out the meaning of Gish gallop – it is not what you think. It has nothing to do with time restrictions at all. It is just a way of avoiding a rational discussion by continually diverting , or attempting to divert, onto other ill defined areas. Actually, putting a question on jurisdiction to me seems like a good example as it diverts away from my point about ethics being wider than the semantics and handwaving involved in defining fluoride as a drug.
LikeLike
To Christopher Atkinson:
Thank you for your question about the origin of fluoridation and how it could go on for so long and be believed in by so many scientists if it is not safe, effective, and legal.
The origin of fluoridation is outlined in Bryson’s book and on my site at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham. Making aluminum for planes and refining uranium for bombs produced a lot of excess fluoride. Alcoa had connections in the US Public Health Service. Alcoa had a lot of sodium fluoride to off load. Fluoridation started in 1945 on an experimental basis, pushed by Alcoa and the Public Health Service, with no approval by any federal or state agency. The experiments were not completed, and fluoridation just kept growing, based on the myth that it was safe and effective. It is slightly effective but not safe. There was not enough sodium fluoride to meet the demand, so fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer production was used and soon became the primary fluoridation material. Other countries followed the US, primarily the English speaking countries.
Most medical doctors and dentists do not study the science behind fluoridation in depth. They just accept the word of other white coats that it is safe, effective, and legal. They too assume that because so many other white coats say it is safe and effective that it is. Doctors are dosing their patients with all kinds of drugs which turn out to be unsafe. Vioxx for example. Doctors endorsed smoking for example. Just because a large number of people believe something does not make it so, even if they have advanced degrees.
FDA and EPA would not formally approve fluoridation, so they passed the buck to NSF. Read about the NSF fraud at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/nsf. NSF is a trade association, and the producers of fluoridation materials sit on its board. NSF does not perform the 20 tox studies required by its own guidelines. Fluoridation is legal only using materials which “comply” with NSF guidelines. The tox studies are not done and so the materials do not “comply” and so fluoridation is not legal.
Your question implies a belief on your part that because fluoridation has gone on for so long, it must therefore be safe, effective, and legal. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.
Just because many people believe the big lie does not make it true.
James at Fluoride Class Action
LikeLike
To Steve Slott:
I said:
You fluoridationists amaze me.
You defend adding small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium – oh, and yes, a lot of fluorosilicic acid – to our water, which people will drink for their entire lives in any amount, regardless of any pre-existing health problems they may have. And you are saying that is absolutely safe for everyone. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.
The burden of proof is on you to prove all these chemicals working together are safe.
You fluoridationists defend fluoridating water with a toxic waste grade of fluoride even though there are pharmaceutical grade sources of fluoride available if you really want to consume it, such as getting a Luride prescription, or swallowing some of your toothpaste.
You fluoridationists defend a form or fluoride that leaches lead from pipes. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fl-toxins/lead.
And some of your are dentists!!! A dentist in his right mind will oppose drinking water fluoridation 1) because CDC and NRC say we are getting too much total fluoride – even if a little is good, and 2) if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.
And you champion this fluoridation fraud just so you can allegedly reduce caries by maybe 25% or 10% or maybe not at all? When there are other good ways to kill streptoccocus mutans, such as putting an antibiotic mouthwash in your Water Pick and killing those bacteria directly?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antibacterial+mouthwash
Yes, fluoride does kill bacteria, but so too does a sledge hammer. Would you use a sledge hammer on your teeth?
Fluoridation is quackery of the first order, down with tetraethyl lead, DDT, nuclear power, and Roundup. It operates like a true-believer religion. It is a big lie, a mass marketing fraud, a group hallucination. You guys are trapped in a maze where the exits are blocked by false beliefs.
And your response to anything that disagrees with your fluoride religion is mockery.
James at Fluoride Class Action
December 17, 2013
You responded:
Attorney Deal
Yes, we all realize your financial interests in keeping this issue alive, with your constant references to your “class action” website. But, could you please at least do a little research on the issue from reliable sources before making a complete fool out of yourself with such a blatant display of ignorance of the facts of fluoridation? It’s hard to find one accurate statement in your ridiculous rant. You are supposedly a professional. Act like one.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You did not respond to the substance of what I said. You just engaged in mockery what I said. I challenge you to respond paragraph by paragraph with something substantial.
James at Fluoride Class Action
LikeLike
Ken,
1. Please tell me what the Supreme Court of the Netherlands said about fluoridation?
2. You suggest the courts have ruled on fluoridation. Please provide a reference to the Federal Court ruling that fluoridation is not a drug.
3. Drug Therapy June 1975
The FDA has addressed a ”regulatory letter” to approximately 35 companies marketing combination drugs consisting of fluoride and vitamins. The letter states that these drugs are related to a product (Ernziflur lozenges) for which FDA has withdrawn approval of a new drug application. The NDA for Enziflur was withdrawn because there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling.
The FDA has therefore advised manufacturers of combination fluoride and vitamin preparations that their continued marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.
Ken, if the FDA did not permit fluoride pills via prescription under a doctors direction and patient’s freedom of choice, it is highly unlikely they would permit fluoride in water. But why don’t you ask? Why have proponents failed to even write a letter to the FDA CDER and ask. I did and the FDA CDER said fluoride when used with the intent to prevent disease is a drug. All proponents have to do is get FDA CDER approval and it would take a great load off my mind. At least the drug would be legal. So why haven’t they? Why hasn’t the CDC or Surgeon General or American Dental Association asked the FDA CDER for approval? It would have tremendous strength for proponents if they would simply get a letter from the FDA CDER saying fluoridation is not a drug. I bet they have and NDA for fluoridated water has been denied or applicants were told to withdraw the application.
Ken, please tell us who has jurisdiction over fluoridation.
LikeLike
Christopher,
You are not answering my question. I am asking who has Jurisdiction over determining whether the substance manufactured by the water district (fluoridated water) is effective and safe.
The court case you provide does not answer that question.
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116
Please provide the name of the agency who has jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Not an historic court case of whether it can be done, but what agency has jurisdiction to monitor the science on safety and efficacy. Who has their balls on the line for liability of safety and efficacy and to pay for harm?
LikeLike
Where did this raving fool come from?
LikeLike
Bill, you do understand the Gish gallop – at least instinctively, because that is what you are doing to avoid my question. We are not dicussing pills and cosmetics, but fluoridation of community water supplies. Others have answered your specifically on jurisdiction – as I said it doesn’t interest me and for the life of me I cannot see why you should ask me.
In my recent article The fluoride debate: Response to Paul’s 6th article I wrote:
I indicated that was my understanding but invited Paul to give me any examples he was aware of that involved judicial acceptance of his definitions as applied to fluroidation.
I mentioned that a Pennsylvanian anti-fluoridation group ActionaPA.org even laments:
“While the courts have acknowledged that fluoridated chemicals are hazardous, the courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of water fluoridation whenever the courts were asked to rule on the merits of fluoridation or on the right of government to fluoridate. The courts have consistently brushed aside the scientific and ethical matters raised by safe drinking water advocates, while deferring to the opinions of pro-fluoridation state authorities. These decisions have formed a body of case law so one-sided that the courts have allowed this momentum to justify further pro-fluoridation decisions.”
Now, I have asked you the same thing and you seem to want to avoid the question by putting extra ones to me. It is disingeuous to repsond to my question by asking “Please provide a reference to the Federal Court ruling that fluoridation is not a drug.” you were the one who said:
Do I have to conclude that you cannot back up that claim with any reference and/or link?
LikeLike
Mr Deal,
While you are back would you please answer Cedric’s question (put earlier but unanswered) as to which vaccinations you consider well tested and which are not.
The question is relevant to the methodology you apply to science and public health. Thank you.
LikeLike
Ken and Christopher,
I have looked at US law, Australia law, Canada law and received responses from all of the drug regulatory agencies. You are right, I have not contacted NZ. But lets look at the clear undisputed evidence.
NZ medicines Authority is found at http://medsafe.govt.nz/index.asp
See the top line of links. Click on “Medicines” and then click on “Education and Information” of course you need to read all the links. This is your law, your country and I’m embarrassed having to read to you your own laws. That should have been your job and is still your job.
Read down:
Medicines
Introductory Regulatory Guidance
Now click on the “Is my product a medicine?”
“Does your product have a therapeutic purpose or do you want to state a therapeutic claim?
If your product has a therapeutic purpose or makes a therapeutic claim then it is a medicine or related product. Go to What do I need to do to sell my medicine in New Zealand? to find out what to do next.”
Christopher, the question you must ask, “Does fluoridation have a therapeutic purpose?” Or are you simply adding fluoride to water to poison people?
“Does your product contain a scheduled ingredient?” Yes, sodium fluoride is a scheduled ingredient. The concentration is not a consideration as to whether the substance fits within the definition of medicine.
If you claim a therapeutic purpose, then fluoridation is a medicine.
Because sodium fluoride is a scheduled ingredient, fluoridation is a medicine.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to gain approval.
Just because a substance is mixed with public water does not exempt it from approval. If so, dilute your cocaine, meth, heroine or any other medicine and that would exempt it from regulatory approval. Obviously that is not true. Just because you dilute the substance does not exempt it from oversight.
LikeLike
Ken,
Your statement regarding the courts is incomplete. Here is a PACE Law review.
I don’t expect you to read each court case, but I think you should agree the courts have not been consistent and there are court cases on both sides of the issue. I can provide more should you desire.
http://fluoridation.com/legal.htm
LikeLike
Bill,
I did answer your question. Have the courtesy to at least look at the references I cite.
You seem to be stuck or unable to move from your idea of what “jurisdiction” means.
Jurisdiction “the official power to make legal decisions and judgments”
https://www.google.co.nz/#q=jurisdiction
I have given you the relevant legislation. Look it up.
You are confusing jurisdiction with responsibility.
In this Act there are provisions related to responsibilities, duties and …even a whole section on contamination and other relevant offences.
So…if you want balls on the line as you so eloquently put it, look there.
As to my “historic” case, I know you said you are not a lawyer but as common law goes, this case is still authoritative unless overturned by a higher court or legislated against.
This case is relevant unless you can point me to such a case or Act.
…..and you still haven’t answered my questions….just scroll up….
LikeLike
Bill, regarding the situation in NZ and Medsafe – have a look at this letter (in full at
Why fluoride water is not classed as a medicine under the Medicines Act – Medsafe).
I quote in part:
LikeLike
What about making it a bit easier for us, Bill, as you are the one claiming:
Could you pull out the cases to support your claim (my reading so far has found several cases that don’t and one that was appealed later.
I want final rulings from courts to support your claim. No a long winded review, or interim rulings.
We are currently waiting on a High court decision on this matter in NZ. Whatever way it goes (probably against the claimants) it will be appealed.
LikeLike
Ken,
These dudes are not interested in any dispassionate appraisal of contrary evidence. The underlying thinking is homeopathic with a good dose of narcissistic immunity.
LikeLike
Bill, I am trying to discourage extensive copypasta here – so your six pages of poorly formatted copy and paste with multiple links was held up in moderation.
Could you please summarise it or out in your own words? I am not worried about the links is is just the extensive copy and paste which I think is disrespectful to others. Especially 6 pages and you didn’t even remove the page numbers!
LikeLike
Bill,
The contortions you go through in an attempt to “prove” your point are painful.
I have given you the Law as it relates to fluoridation in N.Z.
As I have said many times, unless you can point me to any legal authority that show otherwise then there are NO arguments that you can offer of relevance –End of story.
You said;
“This is your law, your country and I’m embarrassed having to read to you your own laws”
You should be embarrassed. You have directed me to a Ministry of Health website. To use your beloved word, MOH do not have Jurisdiction to enact law. You have tried to lead me on a silly internet goose chase of clicking on this and that.
You have NOT directed me to any Statute, case or legal provision as I have asked you many times now.
Yet again you are making mistakes.
You are attempting to construct a legal argument without any law.
This simply makes you look silly and quite frankly a little crazy.
LikeLike
Attorney Deal,
Okay, sure I’ve already responded to some of this nonsense from you in detail on other sites, but I’ll be glad to do so again since it obviously did not sink in the first time. The links you provide to your own biased website are irrelevant and require no comments.
So….paragraph by paragraph, as you requested:
Paragraph 1. We amaze you. Fine, thank you for sharing that.
Paragraph 2. I don’t defend anything. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, a highly respected regulatory agency of the US government, has established maximum concentration levels (MCL) of safety for all water additives. As an additional level of safety, the EPA mandates that all water additives must meet the stringent Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 mandates that no contaminant in additives can be present at the tap in an amount greater than 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. The barely detectable contaminants in fluoridated water easily meet NSF certification requirements. The listing of these contaminants and their minuscule concentrations may be found:
http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals
Paragraph 3. The burden is not on me to “prove” anything. You are the one seeking to profit with class action lawsuits against fluoridation. The burden is on you to prove that there is any problem.
Paragraph 4. First, as far as your recommendation to swallow toothpaste…. with such reckless advice, you might want to be concerned yourself about lawsuits. Toothpaste contains 1200 to 1500 times the fluoride concentration as does fluoridated water.
I’m not sure why you antifluoridationists have such a difficult time in discerning the difference in “pharmaceutical grade fluoride” and HFA.. I have already explained this to you at least once that I can remember. However, yet once again…..
“Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.
The U.S. Pharmacopeia-National Formulary (USP-NF) presents monographs on tests and acceptance criteria for substances and ingredients by manufacturers for pharmaceuticals. The USP 29 NF–24 monograph on sodium fluoride provides no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. That leaves the manufacturer with the responsibility of quality assurance and reporting. Some potential impurities have no restrictions by the USP including arsenic, some heavy metals regulated by the U.S. EPA, and radionuclides.
The USP does not provide specific protection levels for individual contaminants, but tries to establish a relative maximum exposure level of a group of related contaminants. The USP does not include acceptance criteria for fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate.
Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.
AWWA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride.”
——http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#9
Paragraph 5. Fluoridated water does not “leach lead from pipes”.
“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, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Paragraph 6. There is no valid reason for any dentists to oppose the public health initiative of water fluoridation. None that I know, oppose it.
Neither the NRC nor the CDC state that “we are getting too much fluoride”. Cite a valid source for this claim. Your own website does not qualify as a valid source.
Your statement: “if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.” is nonsensical. I have no idea what you mean by this, but in terms of reducing total fluoride intake, fluoridated water only provides 0.7 mg fluoride per liter of water. If anyone sees the need to reduce their total fluoride intake for whatever reason, they may easily obtain non-fluoridated bottled water, they may observe the fluoride content of the foods they eat, they may observe the content of the beverages they drink, and they may use non-fluoridated dental products.
Paragraph 7. You obviously have absolutely no idea of the mechanism by which fluoride prevents dental decay. Go read up on this mechanism and then I’ll be glad to discuss it with you when you can do so intelligently. Until then, you are wasting my time.
Paragraph 8. No I would not use a sledge hammer on my teeth, for whatever relevance that may be to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. Would you? Never mind, don’t answer that, you’ve embarrassed yourself enough here already.
Paragraph 9. “fluoridation is quackery, blah, blah, blah,” Nothing but delusional conspiracy nonsense on your part. I’m not a psychiatrist so cannot help you with that.
Paragraph 10. No, my response to “anything that disagrees with my fluoridation religion” is not mockery. My mockery is reserved for those lazy individuals who lack the intelligence and wherewithal to seek accurate information on the issue of water fluoridation from reliable, respected, and primary sources of information.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
James Robert Attorney Deal is back!
Yay.
So James…
You said:
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
I replied :
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
And then you ran away.
This happened on the 3rd of December on this very thread.
Still waiting here.
(…crickets chirping…)
LikeLike
Your question implies a belief on your part that because fluoridation has gone on for so long, it must therefore be safe, effective, and legal. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.
Actually, that is a conspiracy.
It works for any other science denial topic too.
“Your question implies a belief on your part that because evolution and biological studies has gone on for so long, it must therefore be real. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
“Your question implies a belief on your part that because the moon landings were so long ago, it must therefore have actually happened. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
“Your question implies a belief on your part that because climate science has gone on for so long, it must therefore be real. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
Yep, it’s conspiracy theory.
(…double checks…)
Yep.
You seem to be a tad hazy on the details on who “they” are and the “how” part.
The problem with hanky-panky is that the more people that are involved and the longer it goes on for, the more likely it is for it to be discovered.
The 50’s were a very long time ago.
After all that time, you have nothing but vague handwaving.
The nuts and bolts of the operation are suspiciously absent.
THE FLUORIDE CONSPIRACY IN A NUTSHELL
LikeLike
I am not worried about the links is is just the extensive copy and paste which I think is disrespectful to others. Especially 6 pages and you didn’t even remove the page numbers!
Why do they think that’s a good idea?
Cut-and-pasting six pages?
Holy-krazy-monkey-on-a-stick!
On what planet is that considered to be sane behaviour?
LikeLike
“Crickets chirping”. Only Cedric…
You guys gotta make me an honorary NZer. You have far too much fun over there.
And, besides, Chris, I can put out hot air with the best of ’em!
LikeLike
No James, I am leaving your last comment in moderation. It is simply an advertisement for you class action web page without any real content. Why not present your argument and stop the aggression. We don’t want the discussion to deteriorate in this way.
LikeLike
Fluoridationists completely ignore the effect that fluorosilicic acid and the lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium in it have on the growing embryo and fetus. I have proposed an experiment to test the harm to the embryo and fetus:
A Proposed Experiment:
To Test Whether a Fluoride-Free Diet Improves Fertility
by James Robert Deal, J.D., and Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
November 17, 2013
There is good reason to suspect that the consumption of so-called fluoride by would-be parents has a negative impact on the developing embryo and fetus and can result in early embryo and fetal death, miscarriage, stillbirth, lower IQ, and a general reduction in reproductive success – as discussed below.
Some 90% of fluoridation is done with fluorosilicic acid – which contains not only fluoride ion but also silicic acid, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, selenium, barium, and thallium, which is slightly radioactive. These contaminants may be as harmful to the growing fetus as is the fluoride ion itself.
See the article at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it for an analysis of fluorosilicic acid based on the suppliers’ own certificates of analysis.
A reproductive clinic is uniquely situated to run an experiment which would confirm or deny the following hypothesis: Consumption of fluoride by would-be parents has a negative impact on the developing fetus and on reproductive success.
The experiment would compare the reproductive success of those instructed to avoid fluoride intake with those not instructed to avoid fluoride. Later we will return to the specifics of the design of the experiment. First however, we will discuss the basis for our hypothesis that fluoridation has a negative impact on fertility.
Note: To make it easy to follow links, this article is posted online at http://www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/reproduction.
***
The Harvard School of Public Health conducted a study entitled “Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. It can be accessed at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/. The study concludes:
[C]hildren in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
A review of the study can be accessed at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/. The reviewer states:
Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean [senior author of the Harvard Study] says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
Critics of the Harvard study incorrectly claim that the Chinese studies only looked at towns and cities where fluoride levels were much higher than in tap water in the United States. However, a Wichita newspaper investigated the charge, interviewed Grandjean, and wrote the following:
The truth, Grandjean writes, is that “only 4 of 27 studies” in the Harvard review used the high levels that the Wichita paper described, and “clear differences” in IQ “were found at much lower exposures.” See: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/wichita_eagle/
In 2006 the National Research Council released its study entitled “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards”. This book is available free online. Simply run a Google search for “NRC 2006 Fluoride”.
See particularly chapter 6, which is entitled “ Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Fluoride,” beginning at page 181. At page 192 the NRC says:
In an ecological study of U.S. counties with drinking-water systems reporting fluoride concentrations of at least 3 mg/L (Freni 1994), a decreased fertility rate was associated with increasing fluoride concentrations. See: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=192
At page 193 the NRC says:
There is wide variation with some correlation between fluoride concentration in maternal serum and cord blood, indicating that fluoride readily crosses the placenta. … Therefore, potential toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus in the setting of high maternal ingestion of fluoride has been a concern evaluated in both animal and humans. See: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=193.
In 1995 Dr. Phyllis Mullinex, a former Harvard professor, and one of the authors of the NRC 2006 Fluoride report, released an experimental report which was published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. It can be accessed at this link: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/Mullenix-neurotoxicity-of-sodium-fluoride-in-rats-neurotoxicology-and-teratology-17-2-169-1995.pdf
In her study Dr. Mullinex gave fluoride to rats at levels which produce the same blood fluoride level as found in humans. Fluoride was given to pregnant females and newborns. There was a measurable negative effect on both. The adult rats became more lethargic and were affected cognitively, while newborns were more hyperactive and affected cognitively.
Dr. Mullinex was later asked to advise the US Army as to whether it should fluoridate the drinking water at Fort Detrick. In that letter she explained her previous study. She said:
[C]hronic exposure to fluoride (1 ppm) in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal and cerebrovasculature integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues (8). Another study found that fluoride in drinking water of rats decreased membrane lipids important to proper brain function (9). Moreover, the latest studies have shown that fluoride accumulates in human and animal pineal glands where it impairs melatonin production (10, 11), a finding critical when it is considered that melatonin is an agent that protects the central nervous system from radiation by scavenging free radicals (12). Finally, there is a recent study published which reports that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increase levels of lead in children’s blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities ( 13). …
In 1993 while studying the neurotoxicity associated with the treatments of childhood leukemia, we demonstrated that the fluorinated steroid dexamethasone disrupted behavior in rats to a greater degree than did its non fluorinated counterpart prednisolone (14,15). This finding prompted a clinical study of children treated for leukemia, where it was found that the fluorinated steroid was more detrimental to IQ than the nonfluorinated steroid, in particular reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory deficits were greater (16). …
In summary, my opinion is that there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit.
Read Dr. Mullinex’s complete letter at this link: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/mullinex-letter-to-us-army-re-neurotoxicity-of-fluoride-5-5-1999.html
Dr. Mullinex and her study were criticized by fluoridation defenders who pointed out that the concentration of sodium fluoride administered to the rats was much higher than what is found in the fluoridated tap water which humans drink. However, rats absorb much less fluoride through their alimentary canal than do humans, and so they must be given more fluoride to drink for the rats to end up with the same blood-fluoride level as humans drinking fluoridated tap water.
Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D., and president of Fluoride Alert, has this to say:
Fluoride ion interferes with DNA repair in both cell and tissue studies. … In addition to cell and tissue studies, a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans has also been reported. (See citations at http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons.)
If fluoride ion interferes with DNA repair in children and adults, then because it readily passes through the placenta, it can be assumed that it will do the same within the growing embryo and fetus.
Dr. Connett also says:
At the biochemical level it is highly plausible that fluoride would be both a cancer initiator and a promoter. By forming a strong hydrogen bond with the amide function (Emsley, 1981) it could well interfere with base pair recognition so critical to DNA repair, replication, transcription and translation (protein synthesis). Furthermore fluoride is known to inhibit a number of enzymes which have magnesium as a co-factor (Waldbot, 1978). A number of enzymes involved in nucleic acid biochemistry have magnesium as a co-factor. The magnesium by forming a complex with the phosphate group helps to steer nucleotides into the exact location for assembly and disassembly. It is highly plausible that fluoride would dislocate this mechanism so critical for nucleic acid activity. It is known that fluoride inhibits the enzymes involved in DNA repair in test tubes. See: http://fluoridealert.org/content/a-critique-of-the-york-review-by-paul-connett-phd/
Dr. Connett continues:
There also is concern about the genotoxicity of fluoride and its possible role in the cause of increased levels of infant mortality and Down’s Syndrome births. The West Midlands Perinatal Audit reported that the city had “significantly higher” rates of stillbirth and neonatal mortality than the average for England and Wales.
Could this be attributable to fluoride? In an as-yet unpublished paper, Ian Packington, a toxicologist on the advisory panel of the National Pure Water Association (an anti-fluoride campaign group), records that in the years 1990-92 perinatal deaths in the fluoridated parts of the West Midlands were 15 percent higher than in neighboring unexposed areas such as Shropshire and Herefordshire. From an analysis of Department of Health statistics, he concluded that in the period 1983-86 cases of Down’s Syndrome were 30 percent higher in fluoridated than non-fluoridated areas.
These were not isolated findings. In the 1970s, Dr. Albert Schatz reported that the artificial fluoridation of drinking water in Latin American countries was associated with increased rates of infant mortality and deaths due to congenital malformation. As long ago as the 1950s, Dr. Ionel Rapaport published studies showing links between Down’s Syndrome and natural fluoridation. See: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/clear-and-present-danger/
Dr. Albert Schatz is a co-Nobel prize laureate and the discoverer of streptomycin. He declares that fluoridation is the greatest fraud in the world against the greatest number of people. See: http://fluoridealert.org/news/cancer-alzheimers-downs-syndrome-and-mouth-ulcers-warning-fluoride-is-harmful-to-health/
Dr. Schatz
… found that water fluoridation in Latin America was linked to higher rates of infant mortality and deaths resulting from congenital malformation. His findings convinced the Chilean government to abandon fluoridation …. See: http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoride-in-our-water-are-we-brushing-with-danger/
Chile abandoned fluoridation in 1977. Unfortunately, Chile later readopted the vice.
India has serious problems with fluoride because fluoride is prevalent in well water, especially now that water tables are dropping and wells are being drilled deeper. While the United States allows high levels of naturally occurring calcium fluoride in drinking water and adds artificial fluoride to drinking water, India does everything it can to avoid fluoride consumption. Dr. AK Susheela, a leading fluoride expert in India reported in a 2010 study in Current Science that fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, decreased pre-term births, and enhanced babies’ birth-weight. See: http://www.fluorideandfluorosis.com/Anemia/Current%20Science%20Reprint.pdf
Researchers from the State University of New York reported at a 2009 meeting of the American Public Health Association in Philadelphia that their study had found more premature births in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated upstate New York communities. See: http://fluoridealert.org/news/study-links-fluoride-to-premature-births/
Dr. Richard Sauerheber cites detailed studies which demonstrate harm to offspring in mammals, particularly to various regions of the brain, which are exposed to blood fluoride levels typical in humans drinking water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm. See: Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 439490, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/.
Dr. Sauerheber points out that Adams and Holland report in Pharmacology for Nurses, A Pathophysiologic Approach (Pearson Publishing, Boston, MA, 2011, p. 66) that fluoride added into water intended to be consumed by pregnant women has an FDA Pregnancy Category Rating X. This is because fluoride added into water has been found in controlled or observational studies done on animals to be causally connected with fetal abnormality. Substances with an X rating have no indication for use in pregnancy, and yet fluoridated water is widely consumed by pregnant women in the U.S. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sauerheber-to-fda-letter-41
The FDA in 1966 banned the sale of fluoride vitamin supplements and prescriptions intended for prenatal use. See: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fda-1966/
Medical doctor and independent and outspoken health blogger, Dr. Joseph Mercola, reports, citing medical journals, that “past research, too, has shown that fluoride has potentially disastrous effects on the male reproductive system”. See: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/29/fluoride-reproductive-health-dangers.aspx?e_cid=20131029Z1_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20131029Z1
The FDA issued a letter ruling in 1963, which it has not withdrawn, that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, but a drug, that it is not essential to health, and that no minimum daily requirement as been determined. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/FDA-8-15-1963-letter-naf-is-a-drug-f-not-an-essential-nutrient-.jpg.
Many ask why the FDA has not acted to ban fluoridation. It is because the FDA, like other federal agencies are strongly influenced by the industries they regulate. See: YouTube video at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fda-taken-over-by-the-industries-it-regulates.
For example, former Monsanto attorney Michael Taylor now serves as deputy commissioner of foods and is in charge of approving GMO crops and their use in foods. Likewise, EPA administrators support fluoridation, while some 1,500 EPA scientists oppose it. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/JW-Hirzy-statement-to-senate-6-29-2000.doc
While administrators in the FDA, EPA, and CDC support fluoridation or avoid taking action to stop it, the scientists and researchers within those agencies continue to condemn it. Many federal agencies are conflicted in this way, with administrators taking the pro-industry side and scientists taking the pro-consumer side. Consider the way the FDA has given the sale of GMO crops a free hand.
***
To convert phosphate ore into super-phosphate fertilizer, the ore is cooked with sulfuric acid, and the fluoride and other contaminants go up the smokestack. Starting in the 1970s fertilizer plants were required to install wet scrubbers to capture the smoke. Fluorosilicic acid is the unfiltered and unrefined scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of fertilizer plants in Florida, Mexico, China, and other countries. The original ore contains numerous contaminants, and so too does the unfiltered and unrefined product added to our drinking water.
The Everett Water District dumps around 250 gallons of this unfiltered and unrefined fluorosilicic acid scrubber liquor into Snohomish County drinking water every day. See a typical certificate of analysis, which admits the presence of lead and arsenic, http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/simplot-certificate-of-analysis-everett-wa-8-24-11.pdf
It gets worse. Fluorosilicic acid not only contains lead, is an effective lead solvent. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/silicic-acid. There is lead in most plumbing. Even in new homes there is 8% lead in the typical water faucet (except in California which has stricter standards). Homes with copper pipes are typically soldered with copper-lead solder. In older homes pipes can be up to 30% lead. Old service lines running out to the water main in the street usually contain lead. In 2004 lead in Seattle schools was measured at up to 1,600 ppb, which is 1.6 ppm, an extremely high level. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.
Lead has a negative effect on the developing fetus. A 2006 article in Environmental Health Perspectives says:
Fetal lead exposure has an adverse effect on neurodevelopment, with an effect that may be most pronounced during the first trimester and best captured by measuring lead in either maternal plasma or whole blood. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665421/
While fluoride has been transformed through profit oriented marketing propaganda into an elixir which makes teeth strong, no one makes any positive claims regarding lead. Everyone agrees it is a poison. It may be that the lead leached by the fluorosilicic acid is a bigger problem than the fluorosilicic acid itself.
The EPA maintains a document known as “Building a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants”, a list of “chemicals with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity”. That document states:
EPA’s program for the screening and prioritization of chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity makes it essential to assemble a list of chemicals that are toxic to the developing mammalian nervous system. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/epa-list-ofneurotoxicants.pdf
Fluoride, lead, and arsenic are on this list.
I have talked at length with Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. She reports to me that Atlanta women who had never had trouble getting pregnant started having trouble getting pregnant and started having more miscarriages as soon as Atlanta fluoridated its drinking water.
For broad background information regarding these issues, follow this link: http://www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Portland.
***
In order to prove or disprove that fluorosilicic acid and fluoridation have a negative effect on fertility and reproduction, we are submitting this proposal to a select reproductive clinic in a city where drinking water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. The experiment would be designed to confirm or deny the effect of fluoride and fluoridation on success rates in achieving pregnancy and successful delivery.
We would propose that the clinic create two primary and one secondary study groups. Group A would be all past patients of the fertility clinic, those would-be mothers and fathers who were not systematically informed to avoid fluoride. Although some members of Group A may have lived outside the fluoridated metropolitan area, most of them probably drank fluoridated beverages and used fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash.
Group B would be new patients of the clinic, enrolled after the start of the study. The clinic would advise would be mothers and fathers in Group B as to how to avoid consuming fluoride in any form, which we will detail further below.
Group C would be a transitional group, those who are already patients at the start of the study but who have not completed treatment. Group C subjects were not previously instructed to avoid consuming fluoride, but they will start receiving such instruction during their course of fertility treatment.
The other way to design the study would be to disregard past patients and transitional patients and to break new patients into two groups, with one group being told to avoid fluoride and the other group being told nothing about fluoride. There are numerous disadvantages with this approach: The number of subjects would be reduced. It could be difficult for staff members to remember to keep silent to certain patients while giving disclosure to others. Written materials might accidentally be made available to the wrong group. Patients in the informed group might discuss fluoride with patients in the uninformed group.
Further, given the fact that there is already substantial evidence that fluoride and fluoridation negatively impact fertility and reproduction, it might verge on the unethical not to disclose this issue to all clinic patients going forward. Moreover, those patients who are not informed of this factor and who fail to conceive, might be very unhappy with the clinic if they later learn that the experiment found that fluoride negatively impact fertility and reproduction.
Regarding Group B and Group C, the clinic would advise potential mothers and fathers not to drink fluoridated tap water or use it for cooking unless it is run through a distiller or a reverse osmosis filtration system. The clinic would advise them that it is acceptable to drink water which comes from a well or other non-fluoridated source, or which is purchased as bottled water in the form of spring water or distilled water. The clinic would give patients a list of foods and beverages which are known to be high in fluoride, such as certain teas, sodas, and bottled water. Certain bottled waters and reconstituted juices are made from fluoridated tap water and contain as much fluoride ion as tap water. We would help you prepare a list of foods and beverages which contain and do not contain fluoride.
The clinic would advise patients to take only brief showers or baths if their tap water is fluoridated because there is some incorporation of fluoride through skin. Physicians in the past used bathing in fluoridated water as a means of treating hyperthyroidism. See: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/thyroid02/
The clinic would advise potential mothers and fathers not to brush with fluoridated toothpaste and not to use fluoridated mouthwash. The fluoride ion content of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash is extremely high, typically around 1,500 ppm. Much fluoride ion is absorbed through mouth tissues. Fluoride adheres loosely to teeth in the form of calcium fluoride clumps, but these wash off and are swallowed when any acidic food or beverage is consumed. The clinic would advise patients that if they visit the dentist they should decline fluoride gel treatments as well.
***
A fertility and reproductive specialty clinic would be uniquely positioned to run an experiment of this kind. The clinic could increase its success rate in producing healthy, happy babies and at the same time make a great contribution to science.
***
Note: The authors are James Robert Deal, Washington attorney, and president of Fluoride Class Action, and Dr. Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D., professor of chemistry at Palomar College in San Diego, and science advisor to Fluoride Class Action. Fluoride Class Action is a joint effort of attorneys and scientists around the world who study the legal and scientific issues relating to fluoridation.
LikeLike
Bugger, I should have approved James’s single sentence – sorry people. Here’s a lawyer designing scientific investigations.
LikeLike
Hi jamesrobertdeal,
Thank you for your response.
I don’t think I would be too harsh if I said most of it was off point and did not relate in any way to my question.
I have taken the liberty of discarding much of your inane babble to focus on aspects actually related to my question.
I suppose you would be used to this being an attorney, paring the irrelevancy to expose the issue at hand. All that cut and thrust…so to speak. I really enjoyed watching Boston Legal!
Well….I guess the crux of what you said was;
“Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.”
I think Cedric covered much of this but I doubt you will take his words of wisdom to heart.
I will add my little observation though.
I find it interesting that you have shifted away from “Big Business” and shady back room Deals (No pun intended!) to the “Intrinsic Power and Evil” of the almighty dollar.
You appear to be moving away from the “Conspiracy” label; perhaps you finds it damaging to your brand?
The problem with divesting control from a group of faceless self interested individuals to an inanimate object or abstract idea (human greed) is that you necessarily lose a central coordinating characteristic.
The glue so to speak or put another way, the power of the conspiracy.
Another problem you have is appearing inconsistent.
So which is it Big Business or the Almighty Dollar?
LikeLike
The James Robert Deal experiment. Mr Deal, believing x,y and z to be critically harmful to the human foetus, is prepared to inflict it onto pregnant mothers to “prove” it so.
That pretty much shows Mr Deal to be a moral imbecile and should be broadcast for the world to see.
LikeLike
But its been added to the water for 60 years, why aren’t the lunatic asylums overflowing with the brain-damaged fluoride victims?
And where do they hide all the deformed corpses?
Above all, how children will die of preventable disease if Mr Deal starts succeeding in his ant-vaccination litigation?
LikeLike
12-18-13
To Richard Christie:
You said some time ago:
While you are back would you please answer Cedric’s question (put earlier but unanswered) as to which vaccinations you consider well tested and which are not. The question is relevant to the methodology you apply to science and public health. Thank you.
You said today:
But its been added to the water for 60 years, why aren’t the lunatic asylums overflowing with the brain-damaged fluoride victims?
And where do they hide all the deformed corpses?
Above all, how [many] children will die of preventable disease if Mr Deal starts succeeding in his ant-vaccination litigation?
***
Richard, you bring up points which many fluoridationists raise. Fluoride and the lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium in the fluorosilicic acid are chronic and not acute poisons at the levels they appear in fluoridated drinking water. Increase the concentration and people would fall over.
Actually some people do fall over, Around 1% have violent reactions to drinking or bathing in fluoridated water. I have talked with them. In most cases they were overdosed on fluoride at young ages. Typically they swallowed a lot of their fluoridated toothpaste because it tasted like candy. Or they brushed many times per day with fluoridated toothpaste. Everyone swallows some of their toothpaste. What ever stays on your teeth is eventually swallowed when you drink something acidic. Much fluoride is absorbed through mouth tissues. The fact that around 1% are hypersensitive cannot be denied. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/hypersensitives-effects-from-ingestion-of-fluoride.
But fluoridationists either deny the existence of the hypersensitives or write these unfortunate people off as acceptable collateral damage. They can just buy a whole house filter for $4,000 or leave town. Fluoridationists seem to be willing to harm some in order to help many. Why should any be harmed if there are other and better ways to prevent caries?
You are also asking where the harm is. There is a long list of harms, and I will only discus a few. The pineal gets calcified, which is a master gland, which affects other glands People have to take sleeping pills. Six year old boys and girls start growing pubic hair. Fluoride and lead reduce production of thyroid enzyme.
The kidneys, the organs which excrete fluoride, are gradually harmed by fluoride consumption because fluoride builds up there. The kidneys become less efficient at excreting fluoride over time. Blood becomes more acidic, and the kidneys lose ability to bring pH back to neutrality. The calcium pump in the heart is affected. There is speculation that kidney patients do not die of failed kidneys; they die instead of heart attacks brought on by an acid pH brought on by failing kidneys. Likewise, the heart too becomes calcified. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616#. Fluoride consumption exacerbates heart disease. See http://www.vkingpub.com/journal/jlm/Download.aspx?ID=1873.
Bones become heavier and more brittle, so breaks by old ladies, athletes, and race horses become more common. When an old person breaks a hip it is hard to repair. The patient cannot roll over in bed. The immediate cause of death is sometimes infected bedsores.
Regarding brain damage, there is an article in the Jan-Feb edition of Mother Jones entitled “Criminal Element: The hidden villain behind rampant crime, lower IQs, even rising ADHD”. Read it here: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline. It is about the brain damage that tetraethyl lead in gasoline did from the 20s to the 90s. That was another cash cow that was hard to stop. See? It is not necessary to hypothesize a conspiracy, just a big cash flow.
We got the lead out of gasoline, but we did not get it out of our drinking water. Lead levels were up to 1600 ppb in old Seattle schools with lead plumbing and lead bubblers. In Tacoma lead levels in drinking water dropped in half when Tacoma temporarily stopped fluoridating. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/tacoma.
I do not understand how you can ignore the lead aspect of the fluoridation issue. The lead may be more harmful than the fluoride. That is another reason why dentists should oppose fluoridation – because the type of fluoride contains lead and leaches lead from pipes. Dentists only use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, and it does not run through and leach lead pipes.
You you are slowly poisoning yourselves and your own children with lead. So strong is your religious belief in the fluoridation cult! Isn’t it ironic that the Open Parachute blog is anti-religion but is frequented by people who believe the fluoride religion?
Children do not necessarily die right away of preventable diseases caused by fluoridation. Premature death comes after a lifetime of chronic poisoning.
But it is clear that embryos and fetuses do die as a result of the fluoride and lead which mothers consume in fluoridated water. The fluoride, lead, arsenic, and all the other toxins pass right through the placenta into the embryo and fetus. These toxins are enzyme interruptors, and they interfere with repair of damage to DNA. Dr. The embryo and fetus are much more susceptible to harm because cells are so rapidly dividing. Sauerheber and I have documented this in the following article which we wrote together: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/reproduction.
Finally you bring up the vaccination issue. This blog is not a vaccination blog. I am not going to go into detail discussing the various clean, effective, double-blind vaccines which have prevented and eradicated various diseases. Nor will I discuss specific filthy, aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury contaminated and untested vaccines, which are ineffective at preventing the diseases they claim to prevent and which cause various adverse reactions. The Vaccine Court has paid out some $2.5 billion, so you cannot deny that some vaccines cause harm.
See Dr. Mercola’s critique here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/10/whooping-cough-pertussis-vaccine.aspx?e_cid=20131210Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131210Z1&et_cid=DM35003&et_rid=363117958.
Read criticism of the oral polio vaccine used in India here: http://www.naturalnews.com/035627_polio_vaccines_paralysis_India.html
Some 78% of all polio cases in India struck children which had received the polio vaccine. We do not use oral polio vaccine here in the US.
As a lawyer I object most strongly to vaccine makers being exempt from liability. That has made vaccine makers reckless. That has allowed them to ramp up production of vaccines for everything. Selling vaccines is a huge business. We are back to big cash flow and the blindness induced by greed.
Discussion of specific vaccines belongs on some other blog. The similarity between fluoridation and mass production of scores of vaccines to be administered scores of times to children is that both fluoridation and mass production of vaccines are cash cows. It is not necessary to postulate a conspiracy. Cash flow is the glue that holds these harmful behaviors together. Cash flow is the motive force. It has a power of its own and is hard to slow down or stop.
Did your bringing up vaccination is an attempted cheap shot on your part to try to get the reader to classify me as an anti-vaccine nut? A lot of people hold to that prejudice. Or were you just curious about the good, bad, and ugly of vaccines?
In closing I would say: Just as it is wrong to be against all vaccines, it is equally wrong to say that all vaccines are safe and effective and that their manufacturers should be completely immune for liability for making vaccines which cause harm.
The vaccine debate is in some ways similar to the fluoride debate.
Richard, I hope you will be open minded enough to accept the possibility that you are wrong about fluoridation and find your way out of the fluoridation maze.
James Robert Deal
12-13-13
LikeLike
12-18-13
Stuart Mathieson says, in response to the James Robert Deal post on Open Parachute regarding a proposed experiment on embryos and fetuses:
“The James Robert Deal experiment. Mr Deal, believing x,y and z to be critically harmful to the human foetus, is prepared to inflict it onto pregnant mothers to “prove” it so.
“That pretty much shows Mr Deal to be a moral imbecile and should be broadcast for the world to see.”
For the reader’s convenience, there is a copy of my post to be found here: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/reproduction.
Dear Stuart,
You did not read the post very well. The A group is former fertility patients, those who were not advised not to consume fluoride and are no longer patients. The B group is all new patients, those advised to avoid all fluoride in water, food, and toothpaste. The C group is those who are current patients; they started before the advice was given to avoid fluoride but are informed mid-stream during their treatment to stop consuming fluoride.
A prestigious fertility clinic back East is interested in implementing this study.
What you miss is the simple fact that from the start of the study going forward all current and new patients would be advised to avoid fluoride.
Got it? I do not support the continued infliction of fluoride on mothers for the sake of creating fluoride and non-fluoride groups.
Are you going to apologize for calling me a “moral imbecile”?
Resorting to insult is another technique whereby the exits from the fluoridation maze are blocked. You don’t have to try to understand your opponent; you can just insult him and dismiss him that way.
James Robert Deal
12-18-13
LikeLike
12-18-13
Ken says:
“Bugger, I should have approved James’s single sentence – sorry people. Here’s a lawyer designing scientific investigations.”
You respond with mockery instead of studying the article and responding to the points made. I do not have to have a degree in science to understand science.
The article was written jointly with Richard Sauerheber, PhD in chemistry, who is widely published. Try to say something substantive.
Your mocking behavior is a way of blocking the exits from the fluoridation maze in which you are trapped.
James Robert Deal
LikeLike
You are right in one respect. I did not read every line of your inane nonsense and why would I? You have demonstrated time and again your contempt for argument, evidence and reference for views opposite to your own. You are like the creationists who demand that every supporter of evolution has to prove it to you, personally, on your terms. The evidence is there for you to read, not me to shove down your throat. But you choose not to read it or accept the implications of it. What you are doing is parading your ego and your narcissistic personality at the expense of credibly the health and welfare of millions of people. Only a moral imbecile and a sociopath could do that.
LikeLike
Mr Deal.
Did your bringing up vaccination is an attempted cheap shot on your part to try to get the reader to classify me as an anti-vaccine nut?
Definitely not a cheap shot. Your website(s), which you tiresomely link to, made it clear you that are touting for litigating business on the anti-vax front as well as the anti-fluoridation front.
It is legitimate to compare your approach to both.
And interesting that you refuse to list the vaccines you object to and claim to be untested. Instead you direct attention to a pair of sites well outside the scientific and medical mainstream. Sorry, but our standards are higher in here. Natural News just doesn’t make the grade, nor does Dr Mercola, no matter how many NY Times articles he may have penned.
It’s all about the scientific arena. If you want to dispute or change the mainstream scientific position then the only way to do so is to engage in the scientific arena.
You can’t win on the science in any other way.
Again, and more slowly now…
….you can’t win on the science in any other way.
That’s why you always end up with a conspiracy in order to justify the anti-consensus position. It’s the only mechanism that you can invoke to circumvent the scientific community’s processes.
In common with the conspiracy kooks of Climate Change, Agenda 21, Com Trails, even the 9/11 Truthers, you throw out the line that it is the scientific community and establishment that is indulging in religious thinking. In doing so all you do is make yourself look foolish.
I haven’t addressed your repetition of anti-fluoridation PRATTs, they’ve already been comprehensively addressed in the series of articles.
LikeLike
“A prestigious fertility clinic back East is interested in implementing this study.”
You say.
Love to see the tender documents.
“Wanted, trials to establish fluoride can be dangerous for the developing embryo by not administering fluoride but analysing populations where it is and where it isn’t. ”
Sounds like the kind of guaranteed outcome notorious in some Big Pharma trials. A group like yours interested only in “evidence” of a particular kind, would not risk the humiliation of a public trial that would disclose your questionable agenda. I can guarantee it would be a exercise in rigged premises or rigged conclusions. But it might cut the ice with the gushing classes and that’s all you care about. Either way it’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
LikeLike
Attorney Deal,
Please DO take your arguments to court. Make sure you include all data from the “study” that you and Sauerhaber hatched, and all the “references” to “fluoridealert.org”, your own “class-action” website” and opinions from those bastions of “knowledge”, Mercola, and Connett. I’m sure we could all use a good laugh.
Strictly for my own curiosity, I have to ask, though….how do you and Sauerhaber plan to control for the halo effect and all other sources of fluoride intake in these mothers whom you will instruct “to avoid fluoride intake”. And, since you suspect fluoride to have a negative impact on developing fetuses, how do you plan to deal with the ethics of instructing one group of your subjects to avoid a substance you “hypothesize” will cause fetal injury, while not informing your other group that you are using their fetuses as guinea pigs by not instructing them to avoid a substance you “hypothesize” will cause injury to their developing fetuses? You mught want to make sure your malpractice insurance is current.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
I replied :
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
And then you ran away.
This happened on the 3rd of December on this very thread.
Still waiting here.
(…crickets chirping…)
(…James Robert Attorney Deal babbles away and furiously waves his hands in the air. People point at him and laugh….)
(…more crickets chirping…)
James?
Hello?
Name them. How hard can it be?
Name them.
LikeLike
Attorney Deal
Might it be a fair assumption that after the Deal/Sauerhaber, et al Study is completed in however long it takes the two of you to objectively determine the scientific truth, that it will be submitted to the journal “Fluoride” for certain publication?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill, Bill, where are you?
I led you by the hand up the hill to the observatory
I pointed the telescope at the sun
You looked through the eyepiece
You still couldn’t see it, so
I removed your welding glasses
Nope….. still couldn’t see it
I prised your eyes open…..
Perhaps you are suffering from flash blindness. But to use your vernacular, why don’t you show some balls and acknowledge the fact I answered your questions on “jurisdiction” clearly, directly and at length…and perhaps, just perhaps you were wrong.
LikeLike
I notice the real Deal class action web site goes on and on in a number of posting about “toxic” elements and compounds such as lead, arsenic and various radioactive elements deposited he claims because of the corrosive effects of fluorosilicic acid, these other toxins end up in our drinking water. The fact of the matter is that concentrations are managed so that extraneous elements are well within the natural occurrence of them. It doesn’t take long to realise this site and other (Organic and Homesteader) sites have a fixation on contamination bordering on mania.
It reveals a profound ignorance of biology and evolution which has always operated in environments rich in traces of this and that. I’m reminded of the old Scottish Calvinists who banned the consumption of potatoes because they were not mentioned in the Old Testament.
LikeLike
Yeah, exactly, Stuart. And Researcher Deal just can’t understand why he is treated with mockery……
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Hello jamesrobertdeal,
Where were we…..I would really love it if you could answer my question.
You have made fundamental shift from Big Business to Individual Greed.
I know you perhaps think this is a minor distraction and unimportant, but surely you must acknowledge the fundamental importance of such an ideological shift.
Ah and I know this is a little distraction…I had a wee peek at your website;
http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/
To my surprise and unless you have created a new element on the periodic table, right there in the banner you spelt cadmium incorrectly!
Normally I wouldn’t be so pedantic but you are an attorney and words are your stock and trade. Also I thought that I would do you a small favour because its right up there in flashing lights – so to speak and may give the impression to some that you don’t know what you are talking about.
LikeLike
Christopher, Deal’s looney website. It’s a carnival tunnel of horror. An endless journey through never never land but you can see the constituency it’s aimed at.
LikeLike
I’ve pasted a couple if my postings onto his class action site. Be interesting to see whether they survive moderation or whether I get a visit by grim looking men abseiling from helicopters. On that event let me just say
“this is a far better thing ……zzzzzz”
LikeLike
Guys, I’m thinking of starting my own group with its own website. I’ll call it Antifluoridationist-Free North Carolina, with the website named “Idiotalert.org”…..
LikeLike
The irony of it all is that some of the arguments posted by the anti F brigade report evidence that shows the efficacy of fluoride via its widespread inclusion in manufactured foodstuffs and beverages. So even communities that do not officially fluoridate their water nevertheless have exposure indirectly. This is a good thing provided dosages are appropriate. But this serendipitous state of affairs will only continue if sufficient F is available for food processing. So out of one side of their mouths they deny the science. Out of the other side they provide convincing evidence for it. What’s the crucial difference? “Socialism”. A role for government and other political bodies in delivering the product. These people are homesteading fantasizers who subscribe to T – Party politics. Their patron saint is Serah Palin.
LikeLike
You got it Stuart. Sarah Palin epitomizes the antifluoridationist. Being totally oblivious to her own ignorance she just blusters along, totally bewildered as to why she gets no respect from the mainstream.
Forgive me for straying off topic, Ken, but the most frustrating thing about antifluoridationists is their ignorance, and their total oblivion to it. Somebody like Connett comes along with just enough education and charisma to come across as being an “authority” on the issue, yet totally lacking understanding of basic facts, far overestimating of his own knowledge, and convinces the blind followers who crave any and all anti-authoritarian causes, that the establishment is corrupt, ignorant, and lacks the “knowledge” that only he possesses through his “study” of new “emerging science “. Being totally unaware that what is “new science” to him is nothing more than basic knowledge of which the true experts and authorities have long since been aware and have fully addressed, he blusters forward confident that he has the “truth” on his side. The worldwide body of respected healthcare is either “corrupt “, conspiracy laden, or ignorant of the “facts” that he is trying his utmost to bring to their attention. Dentists are running the fluoridation show, yet are all dumber than doorknobs and totally lacking in any knowledge of the human body outside of the portions of the teeth that are visible above the gum line, and decision makers are all unwittingly manipulated by big money interests. The people to whom he plays buy into his spiel, lock, stock, and barrel, thus becoming in their own minds far more knowledgeable about the issue than the dumb dentists, corrupt mainstream healthcare, and unwitting politicians who are stripping away personal freedoms and poisoning everyone in the process. Portland and Wichita are poster-children for the chaotic circus side-show that he creates by convincing a very active, very vocal, very ignorant few, of the “validity” of his own ignorance.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Christopher Atkinson, your description of Bill Osmunson hit the nail on the head: “You blunder around throwing words haphazardly about with confidence of charlatan and the precision of a drunk cabbage”. Thank you for giving me a good laugh.
Bill and I live in the state of Oregon and we have gone up against one another in various city jurisdictions and his continual harping about fluoridation being forced medication has failed many times. He has been brought in as the fluoridation hit man for the Fluoride Action Network in 3 long-standing fluoridated communities in Oregon: Keizer, McMinnville, and Philomath. In all of these communities Bill failed. All of these communities today continue to give their citizens the public health benefit of fluoridation. In Philomath, the city council actually voted out fluoridation, but the citizens voted in March 2012 to overturn this decision. FAN also flew out Paul Connett to little Philomath (population 4500) from New York to try and scare the public. That didn’t work either.
While it is easier to scare the public than to unscare the public, long-standing fluoridated communities don’t take kindly to the notion that adults, who have raised their families in these fluoridated communities, have enjoyed seeing their children grow up with better teeth than their parents, have gotten college educations, gotten married and startedfamilies, to hear these fear mongers suggest that these adults have allowed their children to be poisoned resulting, among other things a 7 point drop in IQ because they let their children be poisoned.
Regarding James Robert Deal, he has repeatedly approached the Everrett, Washington city council as recently shown up at a Seattle city council meeting to spout out his rubbish. They are not only sick of him, he hasn’t gotten anywhere with these long-standing fluoridated communities. Here’s a You Tube video of his presentation in Everrett. Enjoy……
( I think this will work)
You Kiwi’s got it together, and I’ve admired your great posts, both intelligent, science-based, and peppered with an appropriate amount of humor.
To Osmunson and Deal: PRATT = “Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
LikeLike
Very well said, Kurt.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I’d just like to alert readers that Mr Deal has been taking comments from this debate, writing a reply (as are published here) and using the result as a post topic on his blog.
He has not alerted us to this practice and as a result, if your comments appear there you are effectively being denied further right of reply on his blog.
Read into that what you will.
LikeLike
…but the most frustrating thing about (insert brand of your favourite science denier) is their ignorance, and their total oblivion to it. Somebody like (insert any Phd loose on the internet) comes along with just enough education and charisma to come across as being an “authority” on the issue, yet totally lacking understanding of basic facts, far overestimating of his own knowledge, and convinces the blind followers who crave any and all anti-authoritarian causes, that the establishment is corrupt, ignorant, and lacks the “knowledge” that only he possesses through his “study” of new “emerging science “. Being totally unaware that what is “new science” to him is nothing more than basic knowledge of which the true experts and authorities have long since been aware and have fully addressed, he blusters forward confident that he has the “truth” on his side. The worldwide body of respected (insert relevent scientific specialists) is either “corrupt “, conspiracy laden, or ignorant of the “facts” that he is trying his utmost to bring to their attention. The scientists are running the (insert relevent scientific topic) show, yet are all dumber than doorknobs and totally lacking in any knowledge of (X,Y adn/or Z), and decision makers are all unwittingly manipulated by big money interests. The people to whom he plays buy into his spiel, lock, stock, and barrel, thus becoming in their own minds far more knowledgeable about the issue than the dumb scientists, corrupt mainstream science, and unwitting politicians who are stripping away personal freedoms and harming everyone in the process.
Hmm.
Works perfectly. Only the labels are different.
LikeLike
I’d just like to alert readers that Mr Deal has been taking comments from this debate, writing a reply (as are published here) and using the result as a post topic on his blog.
Eww.
LikeLike
Thanks Richard for the heads up,
It’s also very good to have Kurt and Steve’s input, it’s great to have a wider perspective of the crazy we have here in NZ. I admire the patience you both must have.
Just going by the intellectual quality you are up against, I would have thought it would be a walk in Pier Park.
But alas, as I am learning, never underestimate the tenacity and sheer bloody mindedness of stupidity.
LikeLike
Someone once (I think it may have been me) said the “Age of Aquarius” that came out of California was Old Workd fallacies shipped around the world in new bottles. “Moonshine” I think it’s called. Remember these loons are relatively small in number. It’s not that hard to present yourself as a multitude, especially on line. Having browsed Mr Deal’s various activities I have concluded it is an echo chamber and not a very large one at that. About the size of an English/Kiwi phone box.
And Kurt! Come and live over here in Middle Earth. Remember Fahrenheit 451? We might be one of the few outpost left on the planet that practices sanity!
LikeLike
Forgive me Ken again please, I do know this is a diversion but as Denny Crane would’ve said say, “This goes to credibility”
I have noticed on robertjamesdeals website he calls himself a Professor.
In NZ this term is reserved for a university academic of the highest rank.
Does he teach? Wow.
Going from his website, it appears he is simply a mortgage lawyer.
http://www.jamesrobertdeal.com/
Dime a dozen here really. (perhaps a poor idiom…maybe $150/hr)
Anyway, no great shakes as they say.
What I find interesting is that he has a link on this page titled “Transit Scholar”. When clicked on, to my sheer and utter amazement I was directed to an op-ed article on traffic congestion!
NOT a resume of his teaching record!
Whacky huh!
James, this is directed at you.
Maybe it’s just an error with your webpage and you do have years of scholarly academic experience.
But you must know how this looks.
So, benefit of doubt and all that…
?
LikeLike
He actually calls himself “Professor Deal”?? That’s hilarious!!
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
That’s “Mr” Professor to you!
What maroon.
I can just imagine the idiots that treat him seriously.
Oh and Kurt? That video was painful to watch.
It’s like Deal wants to bore people to death.
“I have, in my hand, a paper. And another. Right here in my hand. And another. See? They’re all right here. I’m sciencey!”
LikeLike
One can only hope that Mr. Professor Deal continues to display his “knowledge” at City Council meetings everywhere. There is just no way to adequately describe such uninformed ignorance with words only. Public demonstrations are SO much more effective. With any luck, he’ll also present his “case” in court, such that fluoridation will obtain even more, favorable legal decisions.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
With any luck, he’ll also present his “case” in court, such that fluoridation will obtain even more, favorable legal decisions.
Science deniers going to court = fun.
They lose.
Every.
Single.
Time.
They never figure out why either.
(The global scientific conspiracy evidently includes all the court systems across the planet as well.)
“They” are involved in hanky-panky of some vague nefarious nature?
Really?
Okey-dokey.
Take them to court.
Please. Oh pretty please.
🙂
LikeLike
…Waiting Bill….this may help…
LikeLike
A lawyer designing a science experiment and a dentist with sciency qualifications giving legal advice.
Oh..…the sweet irony.
LikeLike
Here’s a bit of neuroscience. When you test people with moral dilemmas the circuits that activate when disgust is registered from say rotten food, is the same as moral disgust.
I’m wondering about this paranoia toward contamination, even the thiught of contamination. Or is it something about sin. Was there something in the childhood. Forced to eat unappetising food by cruel parents. It has to be some sort of pathology. Only a pathology would deny the common evidence and seek peculiar improbable connections. Connections that are imaginary or metaphorical but definitely not the sort that can be qualified or measured in a clinic or laboratory. Possibly beatings for not cleaning teeth. Or being forced to kiss Granny with a mouth full of rotten ones. There’ll be a story there. There always is.
LikeLike
Of course I’ll be accused of not discussing the science. But the the “science” they want to discuss is not science. So I wont discuss it.
LikeLike
Their “science” is Lychenkoes “scoence”. It has to first meet certain ideological criteria.
LikeLike
Lysenko I mean of course.
LikeLike
Hi Jamesrobertdeal,
I had a look on your website;
http://www.jamesrobertdeal.com/
Therein I saw you had copy-pasted one of my questions from this blog and incorporated it into yours.
Brilliant I thought…cool….I’m gonna be world famous…woo hoo and all that
You copied my question…then replied to it (I use this phrase loosely)
..’cept you haven’t showed my subsequent reply….what’s worse…not only did you not ask me if you could use it (that’s fine really – my skin is pretty thick) but you have failed to provide any right of reply.
I don’t know where you studied law but the precepts of natural justice must surely apply.
Do you believe in what you say?
Do you have the strength of your convictions?
…so why are you so fearful of confronting me?
LikeLike
To Christopher Atkinson:
I will post your responses to what I post on my blog – provided it is not too abusive. You only have to go to http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/moral-imbecile and enter your reply. Try to stick to the substance of the issue instead of merely hurling epithets. .
I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit putting highly dilute filth in our water. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.
There is no copyright on comments you post on a blog like Open Parachute. So I do not have to ask your permission. Maybe I should ask Ken’s. But I don’t think Ken is claiming a copyright either, and further reposting should be in the interest of Open Parachute because it brings more people there.
Nevertheless, if you do want me to remove something you wrote previously and which I posted on my blog, let me know and I will take it down.
James Robert Deal at Fluoride Class Action
12-19-20
LikeLike
Cedric.
I agree about the Courts. In his blogs he almost seems authoritive and knowledgeable but in the Courtroom under the beady eye of a judge and expert witnesses, inept.
There are a few dopey judges around but most are very perspicacious.
LikeLike
The trouble with the court system is that it doesn’t work as easily as posting on the internet.
In court, you have to make a claim. A specific claim.
Plus you have to provide a body of evidence.
Both sides get all the time in the world to prepare their cases.
Then the opposition gets to bring in their expert witnesses.
All of this under oath.
Signed depositions and all that good stuff.
Science deniers can’t cut it.
It gets them all confused.
One really good thing to do on the internet is to get the science denier to attempt to spit out what they are actually claiming is going on.
The nuts and bolts of the operation.
The “how”.
Suddenly, they get all coy.
They are much more comfortable with vague and squishy suspicions.
The kind of vagueness and squishiness that does surprisingly poorly in both the scientific arena and the courtroom.
“Your Honour, I have here an email.”
(…awkward silence…)
“It proves they are up to no good. In black and white.”
“Ahh…..Them, Your Honour. Scientists.”
“Well, um, they’re doing stuff. Bad stuff. Against the public. It’s criminal”.
“It’s complicated, Your Honour. A bit hard to put into words. But it’s bad stuff.”
(…more awkward silence…)
“If I could just read the email, Your Ho…”
“Oh”
“But Your Honour, the email is really important. It reveals the terrible troooth!!!”
“Well…do I really have to be specific? Surely “terrible trooth” is all I need to mention! I mean, um…there’s this email and…No? Ah….hmm.”
(…science denier wanders off muttering about activist judges…)
LikeLike
Ken and Christopher,
Thank you for the link to Daniel Ryan’s letter.
Obviously his letter dodges jurisdiction and punts jurisdiction to others. He writes, “We therefore do not consider the addition of substances such as chlorine or fluoride, or alum to water to be under the remit of the Medicines Act but rather under the control of other public health and water quality legislation.”
Ken and Christopher, please provide the names of the “other public health and water quality legislation” which provide scientific review of the safety and efficacy of the addition of fluoride chemicals to water and provide their scientific review.
Until we find who has jurisdiction and review their science, we are simply arguing bias based on low quality research.
Thank you,
Bill
LikeLike
Ken,
I understand it is hard to keep up with all the information and quietly reason out each statement. Takes a great deal of time. I posted this earlier:
“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation.
I have three other cases to send where judges ruled against fluoridation. Need to find them on my computer. Change from PC to MAC was not as smooth as I expected.
Bill
LikeLike
Bill, could you post a link to the Netherlands decision, and to the other three you mention? I would like t ocheck them. Our concern here us whether they defined F as a medicine which appears to have been rejected in the vast majority if cases.
>
LikeLike
Bill, you are ranting into a void with your diversion on “jurisdiction.” The discussion is about the legality of referring to F in water as a medicine or drug. “Jurisdiction” will depend on specific situations and is a diversion..
>
LikeLike
Cedric!
Brilliantly insightly hilarious. Often the best response.
LikeLike
“highly dilute filth” – says it all really!
LikeLike
Hi jamesrobertdeal.
“There is no copyright on comments you post on a blog like Open Parachute. So I do not have to ask your permission.”
are you sure? really sure?…you being an attorney and all.
I can see that you are as sharp as a tack at picking issues or Ratio decidendi to use lawyerspeak…
I wasn’t referring to Intellectual Property and whether you had a legal right to republish my original work. I thought when I said “that’s fine really – my skin is pretty thick” you may have picked up on an implied consent.
What I was referring to was (and I did this explicitly if you notice) was Natural Justice.
You lifted my question word, comma and full stop (period). You published it on your website.
You did this without my knowledge or permission. This is just dishonest.
Forget the legalese, the silly posturing. Just some common courtesy please!
C’mon, lift the bar! ©
LikeLike
Hello Bill,
The turntable is set to 45 and there is an almighty scratch…jurisdiction…jurisdiction…juris…
“Ken and Christopher, please provide the names of the “other public health and water quality legislation” which provide scientific review of the safety and efficacy of the addition of fluoride chemicals to water and provide their scientific review.”
Oh…now you want “other” legislation!
That legislation…
I should’ve known.
I think you will find this together with the legislation that regulates the grade and thickness of Aluminium when used for the purpose of headwear construction.
Regards
LikeLike
The following; on Stonewalling and Stonewall Jackson might illuminate.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewalling
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson
LikeLike
“I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit pretending that we really made it to the moon. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.”
“I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit putting vaccines in our childrens’ bodies. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.”
“I realize that it baffles you that someone could believe that maybe we should not trust everything our government agencies say and that maybe we should quit believing in from goo to the zoo to you. Maybe it will someday baffle you that you once believed such a thing.”
(sniff)
So very beautiful.
LikeLike
Bill, you might as well give it up. These guys are far too adept at identifying and cutting through BS for you to have any success in posting it here. Although, on second thought, their slicing and dicing of your arguments do provide me with great entertainment……so, yeah, keep it up.
And Attorney Deal……..the material with which you’ve provided these guys to rip to shreds has been nothing less than priceless! PLEASE continue!
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I’m baffled!
LikeLike
Gentlemen. You are so caustic and unprofessional with your slander that I have to leave and try and control my embarrassment at the terms and words you use. Is it possible to stick to the subject and discuss the issue of fluoride in a professional and courteous manner?
Ken and Christopher, and all.
When comments are made which are slander, mockery and hatred, I simply skip the post. Calling people idiots is attacking the messenger rather than the message. So if you want to be professional, then respond in a professional manner and I will read your posts. Otherwise I skip them.
I am absolutely confident that someday fluoridation of public water in most of the world will follow the example of the majority of countries, dental associations and health care professionals in the world and will stop. I’m not implying that those promoting fluoridation are bad people because I actively promoted fluoridation and was one of them before I reviewed the science.
The way fluoridation stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature in a scientific manner and not with mockery and bias as has been exhibited here. If no one has responsibility, then the tradition persists.
Fluoridation is a tradition based on flawed science which is the reason for my constant request for jurisdiction. As long as there is no scientific body with legal jurisdiction who evaluates the science, then fluoridation will continue to be controversial.
Instead of answering my question with civility, my question is ignored and I am personally attacked.
Please stick with the science. Who is responsible and has jurisdiction for scientifically evaluating the efficacy and safety of fluoridation?
We each do it for ourselves, but who in NZ has the authority and can you provide their review of the science on total exposure, efficacy and safety for each individual.
Thank you
LikeLike
Bill, before you take off could you provide me links to the 4 legal decisions you mention? These are important as until I have a chance to read these for myself I cannot see them as countering the claims I made in my response to Paul. And Paul himself seemed to avoid the issue again.
I can appreciate you might find the humour here a bit distressing – unfortunate it comes with the territory and seems to be inevitable in lively Internet discussions. But more important I think some of your arguments and evasive responses invites such humour.
My advice is to be specific, don’t try diverting the discussion and avoid Gish galloping. If you can stick to the scientific issues and debate them honestly it helps to prevent the frustration which lead to people responding with humour. After all, they get to see this as the only effective response of normal discussion is impossible.
For example, enough of this jurisdiction diversion. It is just a way of avoiding the science.
>
LikeLike
If you think I’m going to take you and tripe seriously you’ve got another think coming.
LikeLike
Well Bill it seems to me the general public in the U.S.A. dont agree with your logic. I think they are studying both side of the argument and finding the anti fluoride people wanting. There has been too many shady statements being made about how bad fluoride is that dont stack up, you have to remember. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2012stats.htm).
LikeLike
You are so caustic and unprofessional with your slander…
Idle babble.
Speak English.
slan·der
/ˈslandər/
noun
Law
noun: slander
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.
“he is suing the TV network for slander”
a false and malicious spoken statement.
verb
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
There is no “slander”. Feel free to quote the part where someone actually slandered you.
(…crickets chirping…)
When comments are made which are slander, mockery and hatred, I simply skip the post. Calling people idiots…. is not slander, you idiot.
It might be mockery. Hatred? Nah. Don’t flatter yourself.
Calling someone an idiot is a simple observation.
An insult? Sure.
Tough cheese, old boy.
Welcome to the internet.
If the shoe fits, then wear it.
I am absolutely confident that someday fluoridation of public water in most of the world will follow the example…
Spare us your crystal ball gazing.
We just don’t care.
Claim CA110:
“Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.”
The way fluoridation stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…
Oh what utter bullshit you spout.
There is no “both sides”.
There’s a scientific consensus. Versus you.
Nothing else.
That’s not “both sides”. That’s just sad and lonely.
It’s been almost 70 years now. Give up.
“The way vaccines stop is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…”
“The way the myth of the moonlandings stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…”
“The way climate alarmism stops is by having the appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction carefully examine both sides of the scientific literature…”
Claim CA040:
“In fairness, creation and evolution deserve equal time in science classes.”
…and not with mockery and bias as has been exhibited here.
We mock your laziness.
This is a blog.
You want to be taken seriously? The get off your lazy backside and enter the scientific arena.
That’s where the metal meets the meat.
Don’t waste your time on the internet whining about how the other kids are being all mean to you. Pull your finger out and get cracking on research.
You’re sciencey, right? Well, do the sciencey stuff thingy! Earn than white gown that you so proudly wore in that promotional video of yours. Get it dirty with honest labour.
Stop play-acting and do some real work.
Earn your Nobel Prize.
Respect isn’t free. You don’t get it from a plastic wrapper at the bottom of a cereal box.
You have to earn it.
Fluoridation is a tradition based on flawed science
We know. We know. We know.
All the science deniers say the same thing. It’s more of the same ol’, same ol’.
Evolution is flawed science.
Climate change is flawed science.
The link between tobacco and cancer is flawed science blah, blah, blah.
Put up or shut up.
Less talky-talky and more worky worky.
LikeLike
Actually Cedric…
These guys think the science is already on “their side” – that fluoridation is both harmful and ineffective. According to them the science is basically done and dusted.
TIt’s just that the establishment and scientific community is refusing to acknowledge this. It cannot be anything but a conspiracy. Or incompetence on such a colossal scale it doesn’t bear thinking about, conspiracy is actually easier to explain.
My advice to them is get the goods on the conspiracy rather than more science, because according to them the science is conclusively in their favour. Why waste time getting more if the corrupt establishment will bury or distort it?
They need names, dates, expose the money trail, the kickbacks, the board room minutes, the forged studies and altered meta-analyses. Names, names, more names and dates.
They need to expose the strong arm tactics used to keep all the scientists, dental health professionals and public health bodies in line. Medical evidence of broken legs, threats against whistle-blowers’ children, severed ears in envelopes, heck in 60 years there must be bodies buried somewhere, dig them up.
Hop to it Bill, and Robert.
Seriously. Its all you need to do.
LikeLike
Hey Stuart…
I think you have touched on an interesting feature.
That of disgust…perhaps triggered by a perceived assault to bodily integrity.
Just take our lawyerly Anti as an example. (Take a peek at his website)
He display’s an aversion/suspicion of;
WiFi and smart meters (these use cellular technology so why not also cell/mobile phones?), Milk, Vaccines, Fluoride and Meat.
Another recent female poster is fixated on contamination, somehow believing the world to “pure” and that ANY level of any BAD substance must be eliminated. This appears to be very common theme among anti-fluoridationists.
The more (apparently) sophisticated responses appear to be those from the “Freedom of Choice” camp. I say apparently because when you scrape the surface, this argument is simply a common fall back response when the “scientific” arguments begin to falter.
But…just look at one of Mary’s comments…
” It wouldn’t matter if you had me believe that fluoride was some kind of amazing substance that had a huge amount of health benefits and no harm I would still be opposed if there were other people did not want it. ”
To be consistent here, one would need to be a strict Libertarian or perhaps even an Objectivist. It would be quite easy to tease out any inconsistency by simply asking about a range of other issues involving State intervention…seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, vaccine programs, Public health and education.
LikeLike
Bill,
I have answered your questions in depth and a length, explaining aspects of our legal system here in NZ to enable you to understand the framework into which my answers relate. Yes, Ken is quite right…I feel an acute sense of frustration communicating with you.
You said;
“When comments are made which are slander, mockery and hatred, I simply skip the post”
Slander:..What Cedric said plus you mean LIBEL
Hatred: No, No, No you foolish illiterate. Look the definition up in a dictionary.
Mockery: Absolutely.
“Calling people idiots is attacking the messenger rather than the message”
Again…. what Cedric said plus…I will correct your mistake again…
“Calling people idiots is attacking the messenger BECAUSE OF THE message”
Using aphorisms incorrectly makes you look stupid.
Using the wrong word makes you look stupid.
Using the wrong word after being corrected makes you look stupid, stupid, stupid.
You did this.
You.
Not me.
You.
Bill.
Bill Osmunson
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH.
Don’t turn this back on me when I point this out to you.
Every time I make a claim…say for instance, that you are stupid or foolish, its because of something you have written.
That “something” I write down in text for you to see. This gives you the opportunity for you to disagree.
Let us test this claim of mine.
Example:
“Hatred: No, No, No you foolish illiterate. Look the definition up in a dictionary”
Explanation.
“I called you a foolish illiterate BECAUSE you used the word Hatred incorrectly and in doing so inferred that I am hateful”
Now, because I have written this in text, you are now able to challenge my claim with evidence of your own. You are free to search this blog for instances that show I have exhibited hatred towards you. If you find any, show me.
I will apologise if I have made any error.
Scroll away.
LikeLike
Oops, Bill. I tried to warn you. Your BS is no match for these guys. But, I realize you just couldn’t help yourself. You had to provide them with yet one more post of pure nonsense to strip down to the bottom line……your personal ideology and opinions versus the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare.
Now all we need is for Attorney Deal to provide some more juicy ripe fodder for them, and my entertainment for the day will be complete.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ken,
Thank you for sticking to the evidence and questions in a professional manner with your question,
“Bill, could you post a link to the Netherlands decision, and to the other three you mention? I would like t ocheck them. Our concern here us whether they defined F as a medicine which appears to have been rejected in the vast majority if cases.”
Other than the case number posted in my post just before your question, I do not have any other on line link and I do not have the case nor do I speak or read Danish. I have seen it referred to in other cases.
As to the other three you ask. They are not court cases because the Federal courts with jurisdiction over Federal law have not reviewed your specific question as to whether fluoridated water is a medicine/drug.
1. The evidence I have is from the Idaho Board of Pharmacy which, after my presentation to them, responded that fluoridated water was a drug and unapproved but only the Idaho Legislature could determine whether a substance was a legend drug.
2. Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Washington State Law:
RCW 69.38.010 (4). “Any other substance designated by the state board of pharmacy which, when introduced into the human body in quantities of sixty grains or less, causes violent sickness or death.” (Note: 60 grains is 3,889 mg. 15 mg of fluoride is considered by some lethal for children and 5 mg/Kg is considered lethal for adults.)
“RCW 69.38.020 Exemptions from chapter:
All substances regulated under chapters 15.58, (Agriculture) 17.21,(Pesticide) 69.04 (Intrastate commerce), 69.41, (Legend Drug) and 69.50 (Controlled Substances) RCW, and chapter 69.45 (Drug Samples) RCW are exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”
Ken, The Washington State Board of Pharmacy had a choice. Either designate fluoride as a poison or exempt as a legend drug. There is no exemption for fluoride as a food because it is too poisonous.
“RCW 69.40.030 Placing poison or other harmful object or substance in food, drinks, medicine, or water — Penalty.
(1) Every person who willfully mingles poison . . . in any food, drink, medicine, . . . and every person who willfully poisons any spring, well, or reservoir of water, is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not less than five years or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars.”
Keep in context the Federal Court Doe v Rumsfeld 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22990 where the Court ruled even under emergency conditions of war the Government cannot force an individual to be medicated with a substance which has not been specifically approved for the purpose and manner it is intended.
The Washington State Board of Pharmacy correctly responded that fluoride is a legend drug. (Legend means it is a prescription drug, rather than over the counter drug)
3. The US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research responded to my question of whether fluoride and fluoridated water were drugs that they were drugs but the FDA CDER was deferring regulatory action.
In 2000, the FDA responded to The Honorable Ken Calvert Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science House of Representatives that “fluoride when used for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or animal, is a drug that is subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation.” The letter continues, “No NDAs have been approved or rejected for fluoride drugs meant for ingestion.”
Ken, that last sentence is powerful. The FDA has three options for drug approval, either approval, rejection or withdrawal. So either no manufacturer has requested approval for fluoride ingestion approval or all of the applications have been withdrawn.
I have a rather lengthy legal review of fluoride court cases I can send to you via email, but it is too long for this forum.
Bill
LikeLike
Ken,
Your culture is certainly different than mine and I don’t have time for diversions off topic.
You did pull good quality comments earlier which were on topic when they were opposed to fluoridation. However, you are not keeping your troops on task. I don’t have time to wade through unprofessional conduct you call humor.
You claim Connett and I have been evasive. But you fail to respond to the points. Indeed, there are many aspects and concerns to fluoridation without individual consent or without regulatory scientific review. That is not humorous because millions are being harmed.
You find humor in people being harmed and I do not. You cannot provide one single prospective randomized controlled trial of water fluoridation safety and efficacy and evade that overriding fundamental concern. And you think my concern is humor.
You find humor with the vast majority of studies finding many are ingesting too much fluoride.
You find it humor that too much fluoride ingested causes a reduction in IQ which maybe a lifetime of struggle for those harmed. For each IQ loss there is about an $800 to $1,000 negative economic impact. You find that humor. The vast majority of incarceration and those on welfare, drop outs from school and unemployed are in the lowest IQ. Each IQ point loss is serious if a person has few IQ. Schools suffer, society suffers and you brush off the harm with disregard for community and individuals considering such harm as humor.
If you want humor I can give you some serious humor, but you might find the humor hurtful, so I will not use that humor.
I would like to hear some respect for human life and health. We are talking a very serious subject which in my opinion, and I promoted fluoridation for 25 years, is the greatest public health blunder of the 20th Century. Unless you can coach your troops to become professional and scientific, I’m out of here to others who are professional.
Sincerely,
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
LikeLike
seems the old story about heat and the kitchen springs to mind??
LikeLike
Bill, in your attempt to use general opinions of various boards to prove that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a “drug” you have provided nothing other than your own personal interpretation of these general opinions twisted to appear to conform with your own personal opinion that fluoride at 0 .7 ppm is a drug. It is not, as the courts have repeatedly held…..your interpretations of opinions notwithstanding.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
“If you want humor I can give you some serious humor, but you might find the humor hurtful, so I will not use that humor.”
Wow. There is a lot of humour just there Bill.
Right there, in that sentence.
LikeLike
Yep, Chris. If Bill wants to play with the big kids then he needs to thicken his hide, and come up with arguments that have merit.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
The trouble with people like Bill is they have never lived in a small country, so they dont appreciate the relativity of the closer nit society. once the issue is out in the public arena, the whole country is watching, and this was really noticeable with the Hamilton debacle, Once the antis started doing stupid stuff and the publicity of the same thing happening in N.S.W,was all over the media, people started to question their motives. We dont want any part of that, and the vote reflected their feelings. If you want the public here to support you, first be honest, second be sweeky clean, they failed on both counts.
LikeLike
The massive onslaught of scare-mongering and misinformation that comes from antis once it gets out into a public referendum here is sometimes just too much to overcome. Portland and Wichita are the most visible examples of this. Connett and his surrogates fail miserably when they attempt to sway small groups of intelligent civic leaders. When presented with accurate information from knowledgeable people, it is generally an easy task for these leaders to see through the misinformation presented by antis, and then make the right decision. However, when it gets out into public referendum where he masses are bombarded with misinformation from those who answer to no one, thus can and do say anything they please with no concern of repercussions, the result is a circus side show of confusion and chaos…exactly what antis depend upon to further their ideology. This was just too much for fluoridation advocates to overcome in both Portland and Wichita.
Bill’s attempt to divert from the facts and the science by harping on an irrelevant tangent as “jurisdiction” is exactly the tactics that are used on the public. Introduce irrelevant “points” such as this, make them seem of critical importance, throw in unsubstantiated claims of thyroid, cancer, IQ, etc, and the public is sufficiently scared and confused to give the antis a foot in the door. The tactics are unconscionable, but are a fact with which we must, unfortunately, deal.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
The following article is helpful in understanding a possible sincere motivation for the anti F movement.
It appears to be a form of metaphysical essentialism. The belief that F for example is essentially toxic (evil or whatever). So F in any form, quantity or context is essentially toxic (bad). This thinking is deep seated in the primitive parts of our brains and only becomes more discriminating with cognitive development and education. You can easily spot examples in pre scientific culture. It is likely an adaptive response to contamination or disease and generalised hostility or phobia (racism etc).
Now two questions arise out of this. Are the spokespersons we have been dealing with, afflicted with this retarded (I use the term advisedly) development, or are they deliberately exploiting that tendency in their target audience? Are Bill and James metaphysical or methodological essentialists? I’ll leave that for others to consider.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism
LikeLike
Every person who willfully mingles poison . . . in any food, drink, medicine, . . . and every person who willfully poisons any spring, well, or reservoir of water, is guilty of a class B felony and…
(…facepalm…)
Chlorine.
Hello?
You find it humor that too much fluoride ingested causes a reduction in IQ which maybe a lifetime of struggle for those harmed. For each IQ loss there is about an $800 to $1,000 negative….
Such stupidity.
Show us the legions of American/ NZ/Australian citizens that have lost IQ because they drank…tap water.
Poke the bodies with a stick.
This kind of outlandish claim is something that can be tested.
Something that can be measured and observed.
So go forth and measure it. Crunch that data. Write up that paper.
Publish it in “Nature” and win your Nobel Prize.
Or shut your pie-hole you sad, paranoid crackpot.
Put up or shut up.
LikeLike
Just read an interesting article in Counter Punch on that other magnificent contribution to pseudo science, the polygraph machine. I’m referring also of course to the ubiquity of parlour tricks like Ouija boards, Colonel this and Professor that emerged I believe from the moral disillusionment in the Deep South after the Civil War. It is sometimes referred to as fin de siècle. It is associated with a disillusionment with progressive endeavour, a characteristic perhaps of our post modern sentiments.
A similar effect can be observed with the decline of the Hapsburg empire. Once grand families, reduced by circumstances to using their cultivated talents to make a life somehow. A lot of dodgy science, psychology, philosophy and politics came out of Austria too as we well remember. In fact a lot of it ended up in the US where it landed in fertile soil. Chicago School social theory was one of the outcomes in my opinion. So it’s not surprising there is a receptive audience to pseudo science.
Human nature abhors a moral vacuum. When a once pervasive Zeitgeist begins to fail, every loony idea in the market begins to look credible.
LikeLike
Science denial is about ideology.
People can be motivated by their politics to think in a certain way.
This is a weakness from both the Left and the Right.
Lately, it’s the right wing that’s doing most of the heavy lifting in the market on pseudoscience but it wasn’t that long ago when it was just the loony left that were the main culprits.
Several commenters have brought up the topic of Libertarianism in connection with the anti-fluoridationists. There does seem to be a common theme. Libertarian thought and sloganeering pops up a lot on “those” blogs frequented by the anti-fluoridationists.
It will come as no surprise to readers here that the anti-vaxxers also co-opt the same gambits.
One of my favourite skeptical blogs has an insightful piece on how it all works.
Spot the parallels.
Enjoy…
Why are antivaccinationists so at home with Libertarianism?
LikeLike
Thank you gentlemen for reducing your personal attacks. I have lived in smaller countries, Austria, Philippines, Kenya, and Rhodesia and find the people more friendly and polite than large countries. Now, gentlemen, my request is to keep on topic.
Set emotion aside and objectively consider the big picture with a couple points.
Treating every person with chemotherapy for an infection without the patient’s consent is unethical. Infections are treated by focusing on the bacteria, not with the intent to chemically alter the enzymatic and structural physiology of the patient with chemicals.
Efficacy: Yes, there are lower quality studies some finding benefit and some finding no benefit. None of the studies are gold standard. Ethics is a major reason there is not one single prospective randomized controlled trial of efficacy. A huge problem and the main reason for lack of approval by drug regulatory authorities and rejection by most developed countries. Fluoridation is a public health measure for everyone, yet ethically gold standard studies cannot be done with the intervention. The ethics of fluoridation should shut it down.
Cost benefit should shut fluoridation down. A public health intervention should be measured in the public at large. For 40 years I have been repeatedly told by fluoridationists that we have not been fluoridating long enough to measure cost benefit. That is nonsense. Numerous insurance companies, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Delta and others have tons of computer data on the costs of treating patients in various communities. Yet there is still not one single study of the public at large comparing dental expenses and fluoridation. The closest by Maupome is of Kaiser patients and is reasonable. Yet it found only about half a percent savings, enough to pay for equipment repairs. Not the chemicals used or installation of the equipment or any medical or cosmetic expenses. If fluoridation actually reduced initial dental caries by 15-30% then we should see a huge savings in dental expenses, because most of my treatment clinically is replacing restorations. If the decay was actually prevented in the first place then life time dental expenses (especially restorations) in the fluoridated communities should be a fraction of non-fluoriated communities. Dentists in fluoridated communities should have lower income and there should be fewer dentists in fluoridated communities. Why is that not the case? Proponents should answer basic fundamental questions with scientific studies.
Safety: Randomized controlled trials on safety are difficult ethically. Ethically intentionally creating harm in cohorts is contraindicated. Therefore we need to rely on studies. At this time, there are numerous studies finding harm with fluoride at blood serum fluoride concentrations found in many people in fluoridated communities.
What is your blood serum fluoride concentration? That is the best method of measuring total exposure to fluoride. Rather than screaming pseudoscience, please provide me with the measured fluoride serum concentrations of sampling of the people in your community. You don’t know. A serious flaw in the science.
For example, CDC recommends <0.02 ppm fluoride in blood serum. Many studies find blood serum higher. And now studies are finding harm with fluoride blood serum below 0.02.
Gentlemen, only considering the fluoride concentration of water is historical science and science from the last millennium, in part because total exposure and individual physiology is significantly unique. Today, we measure patient blood serum concentration, urine concentration and tooth concentration of fluoride for our quality studies.
LikeLike
The following is my honestly held opinion.
This whole discussion gives a captivating insight, a glimpse down the rabbit warren and into the psyche of a science denier’s mind.
Most people don’t enjoy being ridiculed or mocked (sexual proclivities aside)
It is often the fear of embarrassment or humiliation that provide a useful mechanism for learning from mistakes.
As the old saying nearly goes….Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. But…fool me habitually and call me an idiot.
Bill understands he is being ridiculed.
But it appears he doesn’t understand that his errors are the source of this derision.
He deflects responsibility for his errors away, trying to blame reactions to his errors on number of irrelevant “causes”; nasty pro fluoridators, cultural differences, poor humour, his hurt feelings, unprofessionalism or….. well anything really.
Anything other than taking ownership of his work and confronting the cold hard truth.
So why is he unable to learn? I find this infinitely baffling.
1) Perhaps he doesn’t see that he has made any errors therefore cannot be embarrassed.
2) Maybe he understands that he does make mistakes but dismisses them believing them to be only a minor distraction
3) Or, he (like Connet et al) understands all this and is “playing the game”
In Bill’s case, I doubt 3) is true. I consider Bill to be sincere with what he believes.
In James’s case I also consider that he is sincere. A look at his history it appears he has always dreamed of being an environmental lawyer, an Erin Brokovich if you will. He has chosen this path after a career of transactional, bread and butter type lawyer work in order to survive. Now towards the end of this career he is able to pursue his dream of saving the world from polluters.
They appear passionate about their cause…surely by submitting to such public ridicule they must believe in this cause…or have rhinoceros hides and huge financial interests at stake.
Perhaps this charge is more applicable to Connet, as Stuart aptly observes… “deliberately exploiting that tendency in their target audience”
Which leaves option 1) and 2).
For either position, there must be a substantial level of cognitive dissonance at play.
The answer may lie with Ken’s suggestion of “Confirmation Bias”.
Bill/James/Mary/others have this bias built in to personal schemas and are therefore largely immovable.
Perhaps these schemas are due to, as Stuart points out, a retarded (psychological) development during childhood that leaves the individual fixed within a framework of essentialism.
This may also help to explain the Messiah Complex that often emerges.
“The vast majority of incarceration and those on welfare, drop outs from school and unemployed are in the lowest IQ. Each IQ point loss is serious if a person has few IQ. Schools suffer, society suffers and you brush off the harm with disregard for community and individuals considering such harm as humor.”
Bill actually thinks he is on a mission to save the world (or the USA at least), as does James, and one day…just one day, the clouds will part and we will all see the light. And it will be good.
Yet…
If he (and others) cannot admit to simple, small errors then what hope do they possibly have with the Big Stuff? Science Denial appears to be the logical consequence.
LikeLike
Perhaps some studies would be helpful.
MANY HAVE EXCESS FLUORIED IN SERUM
CDC: “Normal serum fluoride levels are <20 mcg/L (0.02 ppm) but varies substantially. . . .”http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sulfurylfluoride/casedef.asp Taves (‘66) suggested normal fluoride serum concentration was <0.013 ppm
Sowers had controls at 0.05 ppm (4th quartile). For me, this raises concerns. What if Sowers had controls at 0.13 ppm, would that have had even greater significance.
At what concentration of fluoride in blood do studies find harm?
Sandhu controls 0.042 ppm and tumors at 0.072 ppm (Xiang 0.064 ppm)
Zang controls at 0.04 ppm and 8 IQ loss 0.08 ppm
Rathe stones at 0.12 ppm
Hossney (2003) Mother’s Milk most samples – none detected
One would assume that an infants blood serum fluoride concentration would be not detected if mother's milk had no fluoride detected.
LikeLike
Christopher,
Rather than discussing psychology, lets talk about fluoridation and fluoride.
Certainly if fluoridation were a benefit, then stopping fluoridation should find a huge increase in dental caries in the population at large. 99% ofBritish Columbia stopped or has never had fluoridation and dental caries have decreased. (last I looked at the data)
A number of recent cessation studies show that stopping fluoridation does literally nothing to increase overall dental decay. Komarek et al, A Bayesian analysis of multivariate doubly-interval-censored dental data, Biostatistics 2005 6 pp 145-155
Modern studies find difficulty in measuring the benefits of fluoridation (no difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities) Studies by: Brunelle, Angelilo, Clark, Ismail, Slade, Kumar and Armfield JM. Spencer AJ 2004,
Not taking into account delayed tooth eruption makes early fluoridation studies “over-estimates of the benefits”….
Fluoride added to drinking water may have simply delayed caries in the past. Hardy Limeback DMD, PhD
low and moderate quality studies found 0.6 ppm F better than 1.0ppm. Edward & Strickler
LikeLike
Wow Bill, that was quick!
Was that already prepared!?
If you wish to discuss the fluoride stuff, could you please answer my question I have already asked of you…perhaps starting with the studies related to Osteosarcoma…Levy..Bassin etc
LikeLike
we found that CWF levels in the respondent’s county of residence at the time of birth were significantly related to tooth loss. Our results imply that for every 4 individuals currently living in a county that fluoridated at their times of birth, 1 individual had 1 more tooth than if those individuals had not lived in a county that fluoridated. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis of a lasting effect from fluoridation exposure.8 Although there is some debate regarding the optimal timing of fluoride exposure in relation to tooth eruption, these first 2 findings are consistent with previous evidence that the impacts of fluoride exposure are less important once permanent teeth have formed.22 Am J Public Health. 2010 October; 100(10): 1980–1985.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.189555
LikeLike
Bill,
You inserted this paragraph into your comment.
“Treating every person with chemotherapy for an infection without the patient’s consent is unethical. Infections are treated by focusing on the bacteria, not with the intent to chemically alter the enzymatic and structural physiology of the patient with chemicals”
And……..your point is?
On its face, it makes little sense to this fluoride discussion.
Cut-and-paste, snippity, snip, snip, snip
First, you need to invest a little effort so that this paragraph makes sense – sprinkle a little context so that what you write conveys the point(s) you are trying to get across.
You then need to invest even more time and effort to construct a cogent argument so that what you write is persuasive.
As you feel hurt by my comments and believe them to be personal, I will make it a small linguistic shift.
Look closely now….focus…
Your paragraph is irrelevant and lazy.
Notice the sleight of hand?
The subtle change of word play?
I am levelling my criticism at what you wrote.
Not you as a touchy feely person.
Or as a gentleman, professional, dentist or any other label you wish to describe yourself in a weak attempt at imbuing respectability and gravitas.
Surely you can’t complain at this?
Now back to Fluoride…I have been patiently waiting since 3rd December for you views on the Levy study which stated;
“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”
LikeLike
Go to hell! It’s summer and we are more concerned with the cricket!
LikeLike
Poor old Bill. I seem to be treating him badly and I don’t address him directly but there’s a reason for that. Bill is a symptom though I don’t think he realises it.
The following may make it clear.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/18
This article is about the economic policies accompanying the emergence of Libertarian thinking (something frequently confused with Liberalism).
It’s about the erosion of the US middle class and the common sense pragmatic thinking they were justly famed for. With the erosion of that a certain paranoia begins to emerge, a certain paranoia and (chills down the spine), an urge to scapegoat. It doesn’t matter who the scapegoat is/are (we well remember the last famous example), because it’s not about the scapegoat, it’s about the scapegoater.
LikeLike
Summer?? Christmas in the summer??
LikeLike
Yep, beer, beaches and BBQ’s.
Bliss
LikeLike
WHAT? No roasting chestnuts by the open fire? No Jingle Bells in the snow? Toilet water circles the wrong way? What kinda place IS that??
LikeLike
Yep! We get everything back to front down here!
LikeLike
Some call it Middle Earth where the fun loving inhabitants are mystified by extremism and always seek the Middle Way and peace is declared for footy, cricket and Xmas.
LikeLike
Without doubt, a real slice of Heaven. It is at the top of my list of must places to visit.
LikeLike
Instead of talking about heaven, why don’t you back up your myth of fluoridation with science?
I don’t have time to wade through all the posts of junk to pick out the little bit on fluoridation. And when I do find a spot, then there is no comprehension of science or understanding of treating the infectious process in humans and animals. There is a difference between using chemicals to kill bacteria such as antibiotics and chemotherapy to alter the hosts response, such as fluoridation. If you can’t grasp that simple difference then we need to proceed to a different aspect of mass treatment of non essential chemicals.
I do not remember anyone here giving a simple response to my question of the optimal fluoride concentration in dentin and enamel.
What concentration of fluoride in the enamel and dentin is optimal? 500ppm, 700 ppm, 1,000 ppm???? Or????
Thanks for your response.
LikeLike
Bill everyone stops for a bit of light banter about other stuff as a break and you get all serious and want to get back into it without a input. You must be getting paid by the word
LikeLike
Wow Bill you’re back!
Too important to “wade” through the posts?
How about you use your index finger, move it a few millimetres, and scroll up only a few posts to answer the question I’ve been asking for you some time now….you know the one on fluoride…and study findings…and osteosarcoma
You know the Levy one…
Can you please stop prevaricating and stop using your own bluster and self importance as an excuse not to engage
Regards and Best Christmas wishes!
LikeLike
yes to that. merry xmas all. looks like a wet one here but see what tommorow brings, its xmas eve,now and I,m not going near the shops
LikeLike
Bill, here is a “simple response”: the public health initiative of water fluoridation has been demonstrated in countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies, to reduce the dental decay of entire populations, with no proven adverse effects. This is precisely what it is supposed to do. I’ll be glad to provide you with cites to as many of these studies as you would like.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill
42
LikeLike
Bill, your question about a theoretical “optimal” concentration for F in enamel and dentin, although a diversion, is at least an acknowledgement of the beneficial role played by F in bioapatites.
In effect it acknowledges that F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites. It acknowledges that there are problems if the e concentration of F is too low, and if it is too high.
This is what I have been trying to get through to Paul.
As for specific optima – I doubt that is simple and would not like to hazard a guess. I imagine it depends on the component, and – considering the active role of F at the surface of the tooth – it also depends on the depth below the surface.
>
LikeLike
BilI. It’s already been done many times and you know it. People are just sick of participating in a charade to represent you as a sage to your fan club.
LikeLike
Bill,
I’ve mentioned before that waving individual or a handful of studies about achieves very little, for either side of the debate.
As mentioned ad nauseam it’s about the current consensus position.
If you want convince me or others to abandon the establishment’s consensus position of the past 60 years how about offering peer reviewed and published papers of meta analyses of papers dealing in fluoride toxicity and/or efficacy in dental treatment – both historically across the decades and analysis/ summarising the impact of recent research. Individual studies on this or that don’t shift consensus until this happens.
The scientific community says the position hasn’t changed. You and supporters say it has, or should have changed, but hasn’t for nebulous reasons. (And, as a lay observer, I have read far, far, far more misrepresentations of reality from your corner of the ring.)
It can’t be to had to produce such meta-studies.
LikeLike
Christopher,
My mother would wash my mouth out with soap if I was as hostile and mean as you. Please try to be professional. I have answered your question once and you did not spend the time to read what I wrote.
The study on osteosarcoma. Which one? Please provide the reference. The latest one I’ve seen was not specific for age and water ingested. The osteosarcoma/fluoride connection must be viewed at specific ages and carefully ensure cohorts did or did not ingest the fluoride. Unless the researcher actually goes to the water district and carefully ensures the water source is as reported, the data appears to be 10 to 15 wrong. And putting larger age groups together, waters down the data so no significance is found.
Now, be nice. I don’t have time for stupid nonsense.
Bill
LikeLike
Stuart,
You tell me to go to hell. What hole did you grow up in? Didn’t your mother teach you any manners. Even the barbaric African natives I grew up with are more cultured and civilized than you.
LikeLike
Richard,
It appears you feel that science is secondary to consensus. Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.
The majority consensus of public health experts and dental associations in developed countries of the world are opposed to fluoridation. (I believe the research is by Zimmer). If you want to find big flaws in science, look at consensus.
LikeLike
Ken,
Thank you for your more reasoned response. I’m surprised you doubted that Connett and I suggested or think there is no fluoride in tooth structure. Of course there is. I know Paul agrees. Paul, Kurt, I and others agree that fluoride is not an essential mineral.
You stated, “In effect it acknowledges that F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites. It acknowledges that there are problems if the e concentration of F is too low, and if it is too high.”
I think most would agree F is a component of teeth. Whether F is beneficial is the question at hand. I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride makes the teeth harder, more resistant to acid erosion and more brittle, in other words, prone to fracture. Indeed, preliminary studies indicate more complete tooth fracture in fluoridated communities.
When only dental caries at specific ages are evaluated, life time benefit is not considered and potential adverse effects are not included. A reasonable public health evaluation is to look at dental expenses. Dental expenses would include potential caries reduction, fluoride bombs, fluorosis treatment, fractured teeth, etc.
We both acknowledge that there maybe problems if the concentration of F is too low or too high in the teeth. To those using police powers to increase fluoride exposure, my fundamental question is: “How much or what range of fluoride in the teeth do you consider “optimal””?
Ken, that is a most fundamental question because that is the goal of fluoride ingestion is to increase the fluoride concentration in the developing tooth. If that is what we want, then how much do we want?
Your friends have told me to go to hell. And you are the moderator here. I think it time for you to create some civility among your troops.
LikeLike
Steve,
You said, “Bill, here is a “simple response”: the public health initiative of water fluoridation has been demonstrated in countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies, to reduce the dental decay of entire populations, with no proven adverse effects. This is precisely what it is supposed to do. I’ll be glad to provide you with cites to as many of these studies as you would like.”
Yes, I agree there are many on both sides of the fluoride controversy. But the quality of those studies finding benefit and not finding benefit are not good. All the studies have many flaws. Pick one and lets review it together. Send it to me at bill@teachingsmiles.com so I don’t miss the one you would like to review.
LikeLike
My mother would wash my mouth out with soap if I was as hostile and mean as you.
Bill, nobody cares. Shut up. Stop whining.
It’s not helping you at all.
It appears you feel that science is secondary to consensus.
Not “consenus”, you idiot. It’s >>>>>scientific<<<<< consensus.
Big difference, yeah?
Duh.
A scientific consensus does not appear by magic.
Nor does it change by wishful thinking.
You need work. Lots of work. Mountains of it.
A scientific consensus is the result of that work.
Trying to ignore or belittle a scientific consensus only makes you look stupid.
It’s more worky-worky and less talky-talky.
Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.
No, Bill. Nobody is putting you to death. We’re just laughing at you because you are making an ass of yourself.
You’ve got nothing.
The majority consensus of public health experts…
I don’t care about your conclusions.
It’s your methodology that’s important. Don’t just assert something and then hope that stupid people will gullibly take your word on this.
Demonstrate how anybody can find out for themselves that what you say is true.
You know what I do when I want to find out what the scientific consensus is on a particular topic?
I go straight to the top.
That’s my methodology.
I check out all the top scientific communities on the planet in the relevent field and see what they have to say on their websites.
It’s fast and super easy.
It works really well for all sorts fo things. Vaccines, evolution, HIV, dangers of smoking etc.
If I have a few more minutes to spare, I’ll even check out what the vast body of scientific papers weighs in on which side. The chances are high that somebody has already done an authoritative survey of the work done if it’s a topic that’s touted by science deniers.
So can you name any scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridiation?
(Before you answer, I should warn you that I have the CDC website available.)
LikeLike
Back to the EPA. The Safe Drinking Water Act says:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ” 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11):
I wanted to make sure I understood Federal Law correctly, so I wrote to the EPA with an FOI request and they responded:
“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”
FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10
In simple terms, FDA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT PEOPLE
EPA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT WATER
Lack of jurisdiction is why the NRC 2006 committee was instructed by the EPA NOT to evaluate artificial fluoridation. EPA has no jurisdiction over the addition of fluoride to water if it is less than the MCLG.
And if EPA had jurisdiction over substances added to drinking water for health-related purposes, then any manufacturer of a drug could simply dilute the drug in public water and the EPA and not the FDA or DEA would have jurisdiction. A meth or crack manufacture would only need to dilute their product with water and be exempt from drug laws. To avoid that loop hole, Congress prohibited EPA from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans and gave that authority to the FDA CDER.
LikeLike
Even the barbaric African natives I grew up with are more cultured and civilized than you.
I can’t believe I missed this one.
Bill, this is the 21st century. People don’t go around talking about “barbaric African natives” any more.
Can you understand why?
Good Samaritan – That Mitchell and Webb Look
LikeLike
One must be very fair in reading the research on benefit and risk. We can’t simply brush over studies which are contrary to our bias and call them poor, and ignore the same flaws in a study supporting our bias.
Fair and candid evaluation of data insists we rank each study on the level of confidence and put the appropriate weight to each study. When there are no prospective randomized controlled trials for efficacy and the FDA CDER has rejected the ingestion of fluoride for the prevention of dental caries as lacking evidence of efficacy, all good and reasonable scientists should be cautious and avoid the cowboy cocky sure attitude exhibited by some.
Yes there are many studies on both sides of the efficacy question, but they all have serious flaws which include one or more of the following:
A. Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors which reduced dental caries from about 12 cavities per 12 year old in 1930 to about 5.5 cavities when fluoridation became wide spread.
B. Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
C. Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
D. Inadequate size
E. Difficulty in diagnosing decay
F. Delay in tooth eruption not controlled
G. Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year around vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.
H. Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
I. Oral hygiene not determined
J. Not evaluating Life time benefit
K. Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
L. Dental treatment expenses not considered
M. Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
N. Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.
O. Genetics not considered
The scientific studies on fluoridation efficacy are not robust. Most countries have rejected fluoridation. But for sake of argument, lets accept moderately low quality studies for efficacy. They why should we not accept moderately low quality studies finding risk? Why is there a double standard? Accepting low quality studies of efficacy but demanding high quality studies demonstrating risk? Makes no sense.
LikeLike
I wanted to make sure I understood Federal Law correctly…
Bill, you have wandered off into kookville.
Don’t muse over the law.
That’s just sad.
Get a lawyer.
Maybe Mr Professor James Robert Attorney Deal can help you?
Pay him money.
Go to court.
Come back with the results.
Kthxbai.
LikeLike
One must be very fair in reading the research on benefit and risk.
Not really.
Most people are totally unqualifed to read research.
It’s like the law.
Doing research on the law without knowing what you are doing is a mug’s game. Before you know it, you will convince yourself that you are the next Perry Mason. That a great first step in embarrassing yourself in court and losing your shirt.
You can’t provide a coherent methodology.
“Being very fair” doesn’t mean anything concrete. It’s purely subjective.
“Fair and candid evaluation of data insists we rank each study on the level of confidence and put the appropriate weight to each study.”
Pure word salad.
My “fair and candid” evaluation may be totally different from your “fair and candid” evalution with is totally different from some other person’s “fair and candid” evaluation.
You are indulging in platitudes. Your methodology is so vague that it’s useless.
The scientific studies on fluoridation efficacy are not robust.
We know. We know. We know.
Get new material.
The scientific studies on vaccine efficacy are not robust.
The scientific studies on the link between smoking and cancer are not robust.
The scientific studies on HIV are not robust.
The scientific studies on GMO crops are not robust.
Claim CA202:
“Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.”
LikeLike
Bill, your misrepresentation is very frustrating and I think it is one of the reason other commenters are now ridiculing you. I never said that either Connett or you suggested there is no F in bioapatites. What I have pointed out is that Paul has avoided even discussing that issue as a “road that leaves nowhere.” Obviously because if he does it gets him into an area of considering a systemic role for F in bioapatites.
You want to have it both ways – to acknowledge what is accepted by science that F is a normal and natural component of the bioapatite structures and acknowledge that this has beneficial effects at appropriate levels – but to deny those effects are beneficial! And to do that you confound this beneficial role with higher concentrations and advance un-cited “preliminary studies.” That is not honest, it is avoidance.
Then you add to that with the childish description of a social health policy as using “police powers.” I find that very offensive. In a society we often take steps to improve the lot of our companions and children and you treat that as some sort use of “police powers.” You are making provocative accusations against people here who support the current understanding of the benefits of fluoridation and are attempting to discuss the science.
Yes, I am the moderator here – I have only excluded comments when they have had absolutely no contribution to the argument, been only abusive, are insulting in their blatant copypasta or clearly spamming. These are unfortunately common in Internet discussions of this issue. I think exclusions of these sort of comments has been very helpful in raising the level of discussion here.
I am aware that my moderation approach is now being used against me – which I guess I expected from the beginning. Local anti-fluoridation activists do. It forgive me for speaking up and daring challenge Paul. There normal response is to work hard to attack any individual who does this, by any silly means they can. But for you and Paul to turn on me and blame my moderation policies for your inability to deal with the science is hardly fair. To demand that I prevent comments which you don’t like is disingenuous. And to use the harsh exchanges that inevitably occur in such discussions as an excuse to opt out of the exchange and discussion I can only take as an inability to actually discuss the science properly.
Yes it would be nice if people didn’t lose their cool out of frustration and tell others to go to hell (actually haven’t seen that but I really haven’t been able to keep up my moderation is of necessity pretty light). But come on, to accuse your discussion partners of “using police powers” is just as bad, probably worse.
I realise that recent comments directed at you have treated some of your contributions with ridicule. But surely you can see why. You have used provocative language, have avoided issues and attempted diversions. People do get frustrated.
My suggestion is that everyone should back off and re-engage with the science in good faith. After all, the exchange between Paul and me is obviously coming to a conclusion – there is not much more time left for a good discussion. Why not make the most of it?
>
LikeLike
BiLl
It appears you feel that science is secondary to consensus. Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.
I’ll be charitable assume you’ve been indulging in seasonal conviviality.
The majority consensus of public health experts and dental associations in developed countries of the world are opposed to fluoridation.
Firstly, I simply call that out as bullshit.
Secondly, my request for meta analyses on toxicity and efficacy was to establish whether your claims on the science are valid. This is not the the same as a contest on how many jurisdictions do or don’t fluoridate. Get on the programme and don’t spin meanings.
Not only do you seem reluctant to provide any such studies but also appear reluctant to even acknowledge that such studies might be in your interest, should your claims stack up. I draw my own conclusions on that.
LikeLike
I don’t give a toss who regulates water in the USA.
LikeLike
Brilliant Samaritan video Cedric…v funny!
LikeLike
“Well, the majority said the world was flat at one time. Put dissenters to death.”
Another example of Bill using any material that advances his cause. In fact many scientists (and geographers) knew the world was a sphere. Right back to Democritus and possibly earlier. It was priests who insisted the world was at the centre. That was the issue. Not its sphericity. Probably most long distance navigators understood the reality. It wasn’t science it was religious dogma. Bill (F deniers) and climate change deniers are the “Flat Earthers” of our times and for the same dogmatic reasons. It is some sort of religious conviction paraded as “science”. Take your choice. If you ignore the masses of scientific studies and seek out dodgy contrarian publications you are either a “Flat Earther” or a charlatan. Its your choice.
LikeLike
All this fiddle faddle about “robust” arguments and legalistic hair splitting is not going to convince people with reasonably developed critical faculties but it will fool some of the audience Bill is targeting. He knows most of them haven’t the nous or time to investigate the scientific literature exhaustively. By taking his claims seriously you are simply enhancing his stature in the eyes of the gawping classes who are happier watching TV program’s about aliens.
LikeLike
London: I see Neon Roberts (8) has been given the all-clear after conventional radiotherapy appears to have destroyed the remaining cancer tissue in his brain. This in spite of his mother bolting with him claiming the treatment would “fry his brain”. Wonder how she feels about fluoride?
LikeLike
This in spite of his mother bolting with him claiming the treatment would “fry his brain”. Wonder how she feels about fluoride?
We can all imagine the arguments she would use to justify her batshit kraziness.
We’ve read them often enough here over the last few weeks from her fellow travellers.
The same tired tropes. The same shopworn intellectual laziness.
The same conspiracy thinking.
Plus, as an added bonus, no doubt she would be very offended if someone pointed out that she was batshit krazy and would insist upon being treated with respect.
The same reason and logic that we use to torpedo the nuttiness of the anti-fluordiationists works very well to save the life of children like Neon Roberts.
Actually, let’s not imagine the arguments she would use.
Let’s listen to them.
Listen to how she justifies herself. It’s all so very…familiar.
Even “they” make an appearance.
Sally Roberts: I Stand By Decision To Fight Son’s Radiotherapy
LikeLike
Bill,
“Yes, I agree, there are many on both sides of the fluoride controversy. But the quality of those studies finding benefit and not finding benefit are not good. Pick one and let’s review it together. Send it to me at bill@teachingsmiles.com so I don’t miss the one you would like to review.”
No, Bill, you are the one who claims there to be “many” studies demonstrating that fluoridation is not effective, not I. If you care to attempt to support this claim with cites to these “many” studies, that’s entirely up to you. There also is no “controversy” about the public health initiative of water fluoridation, simply unsubstantiated claims disseminated by small groups of very vocal activists who then cite these claims to be a “controversy”.
I have no interest in your “review” of peer-reviewed scientific studies. They have already been reviewed by panels of respected, qualified individuals in their respected fields, prior to publication in respected journals. They don’t require any further critique by you. Your opinion is simply your opinion.
For your information here are five such studies. I will gladly provide more if you so so desire.
1). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/
Results
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively.
——Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD
2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550501
CONCLUSIONS:
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.
——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Source
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488212
CONCLUSIONS:
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.
—–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Source
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. joej.mullen@hse.ie
4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8500120
Abstract
The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars.
—-Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
Murray JJ.
Source
Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23252588
CONCLUSIONS:
Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities.
—-Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.
Source
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. jrlauris@fob.usp.br
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
ahh poor poor neon suffering from…..
Life
LikeLike
Merry Merry
Bill, if I have hurt your feelings it may be because I haven’t shown you enuf respect.
(To use Cedric’s useful teaching aid…)
To use this effectively simply substitute faith (and religion) with,
Anti fluoridationist ists
Chemical Trails advocate
Batshit mofos
Homeopathist ist ists
Professor Attorneys
Fink I will have anuver jelly shot…
LikeLike
“In simple terms, FDA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT PEOPLE EPA REGULATES SUBSTANCES WHICH TREAT WATER
Lack of jurisdiction is why the NRC 2006 committee was instructed by the EPA NOT to evaluate artificial fluoridation. EPA has no jurisdiction over the addition of fluoride to water if it is less than the MCLG.”
No Bill,
The SDWA does NOT prohibit “the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water”. It prohibits any NATIONAL regulation to REQUIRE the addition of any substance for health-related purposes. It does not prohibit state or local statutes as long as their standards are no less than those of the EPA.
Your personal interpretation notwithstanding, the EPA regulates contaminants to drinking water, NOT simply “substances which treat water”.
“Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets legal limits on the levels of certain contaminants in drinking water. The legal limits reflect both the level that protects human health and the level that water systems can achieve using the best available technology. Besides prescribing these legal limits, EPA rules set water-testing schedules and methods that water systems must follow. The rules also list acceptable techniques for treating contaminated water. SDWA gives individual states the opportunity to set and enforce their own drinking water standards if the standards are at least as strong as EPA’s national standards. Most states and territories directly oversee the water systems within their borders”.
——http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/currentregulations.cfm
The EPA sets maximum safety levels for contaminants (MCLs), above which adverse effects may occur. The current mandated maximum safety level, MCL, for fluoride is 4.0 ppm. Additionally, as an added safety measure, the EPA mandates that all drinking water at the tap meets all certification requirements of Standard 60 of the national Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 mandates that no contaminant in water from the tap exceeds 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, well below the mandated maximum safety level set by the EPA, and no contaminant in fluoridated water from the tap exceeds 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. If fluoridated water did not meet these EPA mandates, it would not be permitted under law. It is not a matter that the EPA lacks jurisdiction over fluoridated water. It has full jurisdiction over it and has the authority to shut it down completely if it fails to meet any of it mandated standards.
The 2006 NRC committee was charged with evaluating the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs to protect the public against adverse effects. Specifically evaluating fluoridated water was not part of its charge not because of any jurisdictional question, but because it was out of the scope of the Committee. The Committee was not precluded from evaluating fluoride at 0.7 ppm, it was simply not charged with specifically evaluating a particular level other than the primary and secondary MCLs. The Committee was perfectly free to recommend the primary and/or secondary MCLs be set lower than 0.7 ppm if the Committee deemed that to be the appropriate level to adequately protect the public from adverse effects.
The EPA does not add ANYTHING to water. It simply regulates those substances which are in drinking water, naturally, or added, and ensures that its safety standards are upheld. If local water systems were to add illegal drugs or other illegal substances to their water, they would be subject to the laws governing those substances. Fluoride at 0.7 ppm is not a drug, nor is it an illegal substance. It is simply a mineral identical to that which already exists in water.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Stuart,
Funny you should mention “fried brains”. From a news article in Nebraska in 2009:
“But Bill Osmunson, a spokesman for the anti-fluoride coalition called the Fluoride Action Network, said dentists rarely look at studies.
Instead, they trust the word of their dental associations and university professors who are part of “incestual cesspools of infantile intellect.”
Dentists who spoke to the Daily News disagree with that contention, but Osmunson isn’t one to back down from his opinions.
“We know we are frying our brains with fluoride and fluoridated water,” said Osmunson, a dentist in the Pacific Northwest who pushed fluoridation for 25 years before jumping ship seven years ago.”
——http://fluoride-free.com/blog/?p=52
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
“But Sally Roberts, a mother concerned for the health of her child, said doctors rarely look at studies.
Instead, they trust the word of their medical associations and university professors who are part of “incestual cesspools of infantile intellect.”
Oncologists who spoke to the Daily News disagree with that contention, but Roberts isn’t one to back down from her opinions.
“I know they are frying my son’s brains with chemicals and radiation,”
Uncanny. It works perfectly.
Every.
Single.
Time.
James Delingpole floored by climategate question
LikeLike
That Nurse/Delingpole exchange never ceases to amaze me.
It exposes Delingpole as being colossally stupid. Really, really stupid.
It’s obvious that the question had never before entered even the remotest regions of his mind.
LikeLike
Ken,
Please avoid the personal attacks and focus on the science. We are both frustrated at this poor method of communication. We both feel the other is evading the issues and failing to answer fundamental questions. I cannot understand why you don’t place value on personal freedom of choice. Obviously you feel there is a greater good than freedom. The benevolent king does have his promoters. People could swallow a pea size of toothpaste if they wanted fluoride and it would be cheaper and provide freedom of choice. To me it seems like those fluoridating might as well hand cuff people and hold them down and stick a needle in their arm At least an exact dose could be given.
Specifically to your comments in your post. I will try to cover each one at a time with your comments in quotations and my brief answer will try to be precise and have a question.
“Bill, your misrepresentation is very frustrating and I think it is one of the reason other commenters are now ridiculing you.” No Ken, they attack me because they don’t have science to support fluoridation. Good scientists don’t ridicule, they provide facts and research. The responsibility for the good science lies in the public health people requiring fluoridation.
Ken continues, “I never said that either Connett or you suggested there is no F in bioapatites. What I have pointed out is that Paul has avoided even discussing that issue as a “road that leaves nowhere.” My apology. I understand we all agree F is in bioapatites. Good, we are on the same page on that item.
Ken continues, “Obviously because if he does it gets him into an area of considering a systemic role for F in bioapatites.” We all agree F is in bioapatites and the discussion is regarding what role F plays. From my perspective, I think it is you who refuse to discuss the issue of how much fluoride you want in the bioapatites. We all agree it is there, but you refuse to give a concentration range which you desire. Yes, we all agree fluoride is in the body. How much do you want? A very scientific question. Why don’t you ask me the same question?
Ken continues, “You want to have it both ways – to acknowledge what is accepted by science that F is a normal and natural component of the bioapatite structures and acknowledge that this has beneficial effects at appropriate levels – but to deny those effects are beneficial!” Ken, that is what you think we are saying, but calm down and try to understand what we are saying. First, you suggest science accepts “F is a normal and natural component” and I would add a word of caution. Good scientists disagree. And if we could get specific with numbers, perhaps we would be on the same page. What do you consider to be the normal and natural concentration of fluoride in teeth to reduce dental caries? So far you have evaded my question. We have research on the subject and as a promoter of fluoridation, the number should be at the tip of your tongue. I would suggest there is usually fluoride in the teeth and am asking you, how much do you think is “normal” and “natural?”
Ken continues: “And to do that you confound this beneficial role with higher concentrations and advance un-cited “preliminary studies.” That is not honest, it is avoidance.” Ken, it sounds like you are avoiding my question. I would not suggest you are dishonest, I would suggest you don’t know the answer to the optimal tooth fluoride concentration. Specifically to your point. You think I am not honest because I avoid the what you call “beneficial role” of fluoride at 0.7 ppm. You have not heard me. There maybe a benefit of some fluoride in tooth structure for some people, but I find the evidence incomplete for 0.7 ppm fluoride in water. And I find the concentration of fluoride in water as a very crude unscientific intervention. We don’t know how much people drink or how much F they get from other sources. We are not treating water, we are treating people and they drink different amounts, etc. I think you are not (may I use your term) “honest” because you fail to consider total fluoride exposure for an individual. Read the EPA Dose Response Analysis and Relative Source Contribution reports from 2010. One third of children exposed to too much fluoride and that is with a 33% increase in the RfD. Total insanity. The NRC 2006 said 4 ppm was not protective, so instead of lowering the RfD, the EPA raises the RfD. (RfD is EPA’s term for Reference Dose. The amount they are suggesting as safe.) The reason they are raising the RfD is that if they didn’t, it would show closer to half of children under the age of 8 ingesting too much fluoride. And to make the data look better, the EPA only includes water consumption up to the 90% percentile. In other words, the EPA has no intent on protecting those who drink more water than the 90th percentile. And the EPA omits all infants in their evaluation. No protection or even consideration of protection for infants under six months of age. EPA must think infants don’t drink water or formula made with water.
Ken, Just because a substance such as lead or fluoride is incorporated in teeth or other body tissue, does not prove that it is beneficial or prove that it is normal. We all agree fluoride is in teeth. The questions are how much is desirable and how much is the person getting and is fluoridation the best method of delivery, and how much is safe for everyone and every tissue. If we are so myopic as to only look at the teeth, then an honest look tells us there is little or no cost benefit unless we estimate based on assumptions. Estimates of assumptions is not scientific proof. Please provide research on cost benefit to the population as a whole. Then lets look at how much cost benefit you have.
If there is benefit of fluoride in the tooth, then it should be measured in the community at large. Dental caries went from over 12 per 12 year old child to about 5 prior to fluoridations start nationally in the USA. Why? What caused the decline? No one knows and that confounding factor, that huge decay crushing unknown may have continued to reduce caries (like it has done in non fluoridated countries) and scientists thought it was fluoride. Just because two events happen, does not mean they are related. Just because fluoridation increased and caries decreased does not mean they are related, cause and effect.
Ken continues: “Then you add to that with the childish description of a social health policy as using “police powers.” I find that very offensive.” Ken, police powers is what the courts in the USA have repeatedly stated that fluoridation is a public health policy carried out under police powers. Those are not my words. In my graduate public health masters degree, we were taught all public health interventions are administered under police powers, in the USA. I think you will find the same in all countries. Public health authorities have enormous power and authority and operated under police powers.
Ken continues: In a society we often take steps to improve the lot of our companions and children and you treat that as some sort use of “police powers.” You are making provocative accusations against people here who support the current understanding of the benefits of fluoridation and are attempting to discuss the science.” Talk to knowledgeable public health experts and I think you will find consensus, that public health policies which do not require individual consent, are done under police powers, government authority.
Ken continues, “Yes, I am the moderator here – I have only excluded comments when they have had absolutely no contribution to the argument, been only abusive, are insulting in their blatant copypasta or clearly spamming. These are unfortunately common in Internet discussions of this issue. I think exclusions of these sort of comments has been very helpful in raising the level of discussion here.” Have you been fair to both sides? I think not. I know of one person’s post you removed and he is very scientific. However, telling me to go to hell appears to be acceptable for you and furthers dialogue and discussion?
Ken continues: “I am aware that my moderation approach is now being used against me – which I guess I expected from the beginning. Local anti-fluoridation activists do. It forgive me for speaking up and daring challenge Paul. There normal response is to work hard to attack any individual who does this, by any silly means they can. But for you and Paul to turn on me and blame my moderation policies for your inability to deal with the science is hardly fair. To demand that I prevent comments which you don’t like is disingenuous. And to use the harsh exchanges that inevitably occur in such discussions as an excuse to opt out of the exchange and discussion I can only take as an inability to actually discuss the science properly.” Ken, it is one thing to state your science in strong terms. It is another thing for you to suggest calling a person idiot and telling them to go to hell is furthering our understanding of fluoridation. When I visited NZ, everyone was super nice. This forum seems to have attacked the few exceptions.
Ken, “Yes it would be nice if people didn’t lose their cool out of frustration and tell others to go to hell (actually haven’t seen that but I really haven’t been able to keep up my moderation is of necessity pretty light). But come on, to accuse your discussion partners of “using police powers” is just as bad, probably worse.” Ken, please type in the words, “fluoridation police powers and see the list of documents. For example:
1. Pace Environmental Law Review at http://fluoridation.com/legal.htm Fluoridation of Public Water Systems: Valid Exercise of State Police Power or Constitutional Violation?
2. ” Fluoridation is a Proper Use of the Police Power”
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/FluoridationisaProperUseofthePolicePower.html
And many more. In order to force people to take a medication or chemical without their consent, police powers of an authoritarian state must be used. And I support the use of police powers for the control of highly contagious diseases and if at all possible with approved medications under a doctor’s orders when there are no other options. People can be instructed to swallow a pea size of toothpaste instead of fluoridated water. Cheaper and better and permits freedom of choice, but violates FDA CDER approved label.
Ken continues: “I realise that recent comments directed at you have treated some of your contributions with ridicule. But surely you can see why.” No I cannot see how ridicule educates or increases understanding. You have said my term of “police powers” is similar to someone telling me to go to hell. With further information, I would encourage you to reconsider. Do I ridicule you for your past understanding? No. Because no one knows everything and we can learn from each other. Ridicule builds walls. I want to tear down walls. We both have the best intentions, so lets be professional and not ridicule each other.
Ken continues: “You have used provocative language, have avoided issues and attempted diversions. People do get frustrated.” My apology for provocative language. Please point out what I have said which provoked you and I will withdraw and restate or defend the terms with science.
Ken continues: “My suggestion is that everyone should back off and re-engage with the science in good faith. After all, the exchange between Paul and me is obviously coming to a conclusion – there is not much more time left for a good discussion. Why not make the most of it?”
Bravo Ken. After all, in my opinion we all want whats best and this is a complex issue of huge significance to public health.
LikeLike
Steve Slott,
It is about 11pm Christmas Eve and I am spending it with you. That is how much I value your post. You were kind enough to provide citations to literature. Thank you. At this late hour, I will cut to the heart of the matter. I did not review all five of your citations in depth again, so I don’t remember all the particulars. For example, the Australian work by Jason has large numbers and is reasonably consistent but has numerous omissions which I have listed earlier, such as delay in tooth eruption, total fluoride exposure, difficulty in diagnosis, unknown confounding factors, diet, etc. I would love to go into detail on each problem with each study and it could take us several weeks. The heart of the matter is those studies are low quality as they have numerous weaknesses. But low quality studies showing benefit must not be dismissed. Just as low quality studies finding harm must not be dismissed. So for discussion, lets assume there is a benefit to fluoridation.
My question to you Steve, is of the 128 surfaces of adult teeth, what is the average number of tooth surfaces you would say have been saved from caries? From my study, I would suggest about half a tooth surface less in the fluoridated communities. And that is assuming there is no delay in eruption, difficulty in diagnosis (fluoride bomb), etc. Would you agree with half a tooth surface saved with fluoridated water?
LikeLike
So it’s back to your bankrupt science arguments is it Bill after virtually conceding its not the science after all, it’s the ethics?
What about the ethics of denying common sense measures that reduce dental caries for the sake of some ridiculous Libertarian ideology hatched by Austrian refugees who were nothing more than Social Darwinists.
LikeLike
Steve can you provide another link to the Nebraska news item? That one didn’t work but I see fluoridefree.com is criminally peddling the claim hypothyroidism is caused by fluoride. I, my parents, aunts and uncles grew up in Southland, New Zealand with varying degrees of enlarged goitre. Scientists and politicians unencumbered with Social Darwinist theories solved the problem promptly with iodised salt. Why does Bill O expect to be treated with respect when he elevates his stupid political ideology above the welfare of common people. Left to themselves many lay people do not make wise choices, partly because unscrupulous people snare these people with deliberate misinformation. Typically these misguided people talk about “researching” on the Internet when what they have really done is checked out some colourful misinformation site like Flouridefree or Fluorideclassaction.
I see the Fluoridefree site is on the market (for those of you who have no scruples about supplementing your retirement income by misinforming gullible lay people).
LikeLike
“One must be very fair in reading the research on benefit and risk. We can’t simply brush over studies which are contrary to our bias and call them poor, and ignore the same flaws in a study supporting our bias.”
You sanctimonious hypocrite!
LikeLike
your studies are no good
no your studies are no good
your studies are out of date
no your studies are out of date
your studies don’t address this
no your studies don’t address that
Bill, science isn’t settles this way.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Bill,
“From my study, I would suggest about half a tooth surface less in the fluoridated communities. And that is assuming there is no delay in eruption, difficulty in diagnosis (fluoride bomb), etc. Would you agree with half a tooth surface saved with fluoridated water?”
Thank you for admitting your having misrepresented the truth in claiming there to be no benefit from water fluoridation. Yes, as you finally admit, fluoride does, indeed, save teeth from dental decay. Now that we are on the same page with this, I agree that AT LEAST a “half a tooth surface” is saved through the public health initiative of water fluoridation. Now, simply working with your estimation of a “half a tooth surface” do you agree that in terms of untreated dental decay that the results of one half surface being decayed are potentially just as devastating as if one whole surface gets decayed? Do you agree that untreated dental decay whether in “one half surface” or one whole surface, can and does often lead to the loss, not only of that one tooth, but to the loss of an entire dentition? Do you agree that untreated decay in “one half surface” can and does lead to extreme pain, debilitation, life-threatening infection, and death?
Now that we have agreed that water fluoridation is a beneficial public health initiative all that is left is for you to understand that in the entire 68 year history of the initiative, there has never been any valid proof of adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level. Given that you agree that water fluoridation is beneficial, and given that there are no adverse effects, wouldn’t you now agree that there us no valid reason to oppose it?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ah Bill,
I’ll keep my cuss words down to a minimum….I don’t take to kindly to all that soap ….
Anyways…I took the trouble to read what you wrote, aseein’ as you were a writing this so close to Christmas in all.
I will focus on the legal stuff, I have given you the NZ perspective so will shift of to your neck of the woods. Maybe Professor Attorney Deal could give me some pointers if I wander off the track and make a mistake or two?
You provided two references to back up your krazy idea that water fluoridation is (or should be) unlawful where you live.
http://fluoridation.com/legal.htm
This article is a article written in a journal 17 years ago. It’s not law, just some guys opinion. Yep…17 years ago…..
Surely it must be Christmas coz right at the end of this article all wrapped up with a shiny bow was this gift…..
“This Comment is dedicated to my dad, Ralph F. Balog, who has opposed fluoridation of public water systems since the early 1960s.”
That’s right! (wiping the tears from my eyes) Kinda sweet really.
But to top it off was this…
“The author received a B.S. from Parks College of St. Louis University in 1985, an M.S. from Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University in 1990, and a J.D. from Pace University School of Law in 1997.”
That’s right! the author wrote this the same year as he received his Law Degree. So, to use my oft used saying, not only didn’t he know his arse from his elbow but it was all for his dear old Dad!!
Oh Bill you really do have a sense of humour don’t you! (holding my sides to keep them from splitting)
The second reference you gave Bill was;
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/FluoridationisaProperUseofthePolicePower.html
This article is another opinion piece written by a Professor Edward Richards, LSU Law Center. It SUPPORTS the view that Fluoridation is a Proper Use of the Police Power, (More tears…splitting sides).
Bill, do you know what Police Powers are?
For the benefit of NZ readers it simply refers the to capacity of the States to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.
They are NOT some Orwellian Jackboot method of State control, simply a method of for the administration of law in the U.S Federal system.
OK Bill.
I did a little reseach of my own….spent all of 3 minutes and….
It appears that in the USA the leading authority is Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) where Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question.
I googled it….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_in_the_United_States#Court_cases
But if you can show me where I am wrong….go for your life
Merry Christmas Bill!
LikeLike
Wonderful Steve and Christopher. Now that that’s all sorted and in the spirit of the season here’s the Southern Hemisphere version of a Xmas in Wales (probably the original according to John Clark).
“This is the work of a guy called Dylan Thompson. Dylan Thompson was a martyr to the turps. He frequently woke in unfamiliar circumstances and attempted to catch the speech rhythms of the sea. There was a guy in Wales who wrote something called ‘A Child’s Christmas in Wales’. This is the original in its entirety. It’s called ‘A Child’s Christmas in Warrnambool’.
One Christmas was so like another in those years around the sea town corner now, that I can never remember whether it was 106 degrees in 1953 or whether it was 103 degrees in 1956.
All the Christmases roll into one down the wave-roaring salt-squinting years of yesterboy.
My hand goes into the fridge of imperishable memory and out come: salads and sunburn lotions,
the brief exuberant hiss of beer being opened and the laugh of wet-haired youths around a Zepher 6,
the smell of insect repellent and eucalyptus and the distant constant slowly listless bang of the flywire door.
And resting on a formica altar, waiting for Ron,
the biggest Pav in the world;
a magic Pav,
a cut-and-come-again Pav for all the children in all the towns across the wide brown bee-humming trout-fit sheep-rich two-horse country.
And the Aunts. Always the Aunts.
In the kitchen on the black-and-white photographed beach of the past,
playing out the rope to a shared childhood,
caught in the undertow and drifting.
And some numerous Uncles, wondering sometimes why they weren’t each other,
coming around the letterbox to an attacking field in the Test match
and being driven handsomely by some middle-order nephew,
skipping down the vowel-flattening pitch and putting the ball into the tent-flaps on the first bounce of puberty.”
(Hijacked from a certain Welshman)
LikeLike
And just to show were sane and they’re mad here’s a fine example of Celtic exuberance.
Stuart.
LikeLike
Bill – I find offensive comments like this from you:
“you don’t place value on personal freedom of choice. Obviously you feel there is a greater good than freedom.”
“those fluoridating might as well hand cuff people and hold them down and stick a needle in their arm At least an exact dose could be given.”
“public health policies which do not require individual consent, are done under police powers, government authority.”
“Ken, it is one thing to state your science in strong terms. It is another thing for you to suggest calling a person idiot and telling them to go to hell is furthering our understanding of fluoridation.”
Now, I am not going to get my knickers in a twist, loose any sleep over this – or withhold you comments in moderation.
I can appreciate how you may be offended by comments from others here. I am too and many of them have been directed at me personally. But that, by itself, is not sufficient to withhold those comments in moderation as you and Paul seem to expect.
I have explained the relatively weak approach I am taking on this.
You say I have not been fair in my moderation. But why? You say “I know of one person’s post you removed and he is very scientific. However, telling me to go to hell appears to be acceptable for you and furthers dialogue and discussion?”
I suppose you are referring to the single comment of yours I witheld. That was a 6 page copy and paste, no change in formatting to exclude page numbers or preserve links or allow us to make sense of references. It was not at all offensive (from memory) but it certainly violated the criteria I am using. (This sort of thoughtless copypasta does offend me because I think it shows disrespect for other commenters). It is not a matter of not being fair – it was a matter of your overstepping a criteria. Yes, it is probably true that I get these sort of unaccompanied copypasta and video link posts mainly from those opposing fluoridation.
Perhaps the person I have held back most in moderation is Andy – he is not against fluoridation from what I can tell (probably more in support of), but he likes to make trouble and provoke others into silly and long exchanges often ending in crude language. His absence has been an improvement.
I think the best way of treating something you find abusive is ignore it, don’t allow yourself to be diverted, and deal with the science.
LikeLike
Stuart, when I used the link to fluoride-free before, it worked. Now it just takes me to I guess, what you saw, a site where they are trying to sell the website. I thought fleetingly about submitting an iffer of 2 cents, but then figured that would be way overpriced. The article in which Bill was quoted was on August 18, 2009. I have a pdf of the article but just not the site, if my link won’t work anymore. I’ll keep trying to find an online link. His statements as quoted, are very telling as to his ties to FAN and his disdain for authoritative entities that disagree with his personal ideology on this issue.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Ken,
There’s nothing more offensive or abusive than to use the Internet to promote outrageous lies. These people are like lawyers who seek a conviction no matter what or a discharge no matter what. In fact as we know, some of them are lawyers of that ilk. The public exists to be conned.
LikeLike
Dear Ken,
I have missed your response to the term “Police powers.” You found the term offensive and reasonable evidence for others to slander me. Did you do a search for yourself and see that the term is frequently used because fluoridation is done under the authority of police powers.
To be professional, a response from you is requested.
Do you agree police powers are used to fluoridate public water?
Do you agree police powers are used and that removes reasonable freedom of choice? After all, when we go to a restaurant or purchase processed foods we don’t know whether the water used in the food is fluoridated.
LikeLike
Libel Bill…Libel….get it right…..
OK…you are talking about American Constitutional Law here. We don’t have Police Powers here in NZ, we have a Unitary Political system, not Federal.
You are asking a legal question. Scroll up 7 posts and read…
I would love to discuss your position, AFTER you read my detailed, accurate and on point post…
Go on….
LikeLike
You guys love to twist words and be as dishonest as possible. Your lack of interest in honest scientific discovery or discourse makes discussion all but impossible. Please stick to the science and stop personal attacks.
If you quote me, then please put it in discussion. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion of a half a tooth savings in dental caries with fluoridation if no confounding factors are included, you leave out the full concept.
Now consider cost savings, if no confounding factors are included. Half a tooth savings would represent about $50 to $80 life time savings. Remember, the half a surface dental caries savings is one time.
80 years of fluoridation at about $1/year cost for fluoridation chemicals would represent no savings. Now consider the equipment installation and repairs and there is a loss with fluoridation.
And then the numerous confounding factors not included in fluoridation studies needs to be included and fluoridation is not a cost savings. That is the reason there are no good studies of the whole population on measured cost benefits. And the one study by Maupoum which is fair, found half a percent savings, enough to pay for repairs of equipment and not the chemicals themselves.
After more than sixty years of police powers taking away freedom and a lack of evidence of cost savings and no prospective randomized controlled trials and numerous studies finding risk of harm at blood serum fluoride concentrations at levels found in the community at large, and the EPA confirming one third or more of children are ingesting too much fluoride, any reasonable sane rational person with reasonable judgment would recommend a cessation to fluoridation. People wanting to ingest fluoride can simply swallow a pea size of toothpaste.
LikeLike
C’mon Bill…you’re not scared I will out law you?
police powers….police powers…police powers..polic…
Hey…”You guys love to twist words and be as dishonest as possible”.
You’re not libelling me are you? I hope you have evidence to support your accusation…dishonesty is a pretty heinous crime you know.
If only I had a dollar….”People wanting to ingest fluoride can simply swallow a pea size of toothpaste”…sigh
LikeLike
Your lack of interest in honest scientific discovery or discourse makes…
Stop lying, Bill.
You wouldn’t know scientific discovery if it slapped you in the back of the head.
Ultimately, you are lazy.
You refuse to do the work that science demands.
You are more comfortable sitting on the sidelines watching real scientists get on with the job and you going “Nu Uh!”
It’s hugely unimpressive.
That’s why you are restricted to vanity press books and silly debates with strangers on the internet.
After more than sixty years of police powers taking away freedom…
Grow up.
Ranting about police powers and freedom will not help you.
Christopher explained to you in plain English what “police powers” meant in legal terms.
You may choose to ignore him but the rest of us won’t.
You can’t go “Ooogity-Boogity” and expect to frighten anybody with such hysterical language.
You are not dealing with children here.
Water fluoridation is old news. You lot have had almost 70 years to get your act together and you have nothing new to offer. What you are doing is plain silly.
Just look at the chumps you have been able to collect as your cheer squad.
Mary, IAN, Peter, Alison, Mel, Trish, James etc.
We’re not dealing with the sharpest pencils in the box.
With friends like them, you don’t need enemies.
These are people that fall for the “poisoned horses” story.
They happily gabble about personal ancedotes.
Dredging up studies from before WW2.
And they endlessly serve heapings of copypasta, copypasta and more copypasta.
They even steal internet exchanges and post them on their own blogs where they can “edit” any way they want!?!?
Shifting the burden of proof.
Gish Galloping.
It’s a never ending story of paranoid kooks and self-righteous wierdos.
Their methodology betrays them.
LikeLike
So everyone else is denied a proven public health benefit because of your irrational obsession?
LikeLike
Bill O.
We’re not interested in your recapitulation of discredited arguments. What concerns us is your state of mind aka your persistent obsessiveness. Your either mad or running a dodgy strategy. I think both actually. Your prepared to use unscrupulous populist methods of marshalling political support from people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. And the same goes for your mates out here in New Zealand.
LikeLike
EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”
Click to access 48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf
Do not ignore scientific information just because you disagree with it, which is what fluoridationists do.
LikeLike
Richard and Ken,
You say my comment that most public health experts in developed countries are opposed to fluoridation as bull shit. Read the literature on both sides of the controversy. Most European and Chinese Dental Associations and public health experts are opposed to fluoridation of public water. That leaves just a few developed countries in favor.
Science should be based on facts with good judgment rather than belief in traditional myths.
Judgment needs to remember that:
A. police powers are used to force everyone to ingest a dilute amount of highly toxic substance.
B. No prospective randomized controlled trials have been done.
C. Countries without fluoridation or fluoride salt have decreased caries to the same low levels. Clearly, fluoridation is not required to reduce dental caries in the public at large.
D. Police powers are used to give it to everyone when simply swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing and provide freedom without police powers.
E. Most developed countries (most EU countries, China, etc.) do not fluoridate their water. Most people in the world do not get fluoridation.
F. EPA (Source Contribution Analysis 2010 Figure 8-1) and experts (based on dental fluorosis) agree, most or many millions of children ingest too much fluoride.
G. Cessation of fluoridation in communities has not seen an increase in caries.
H. Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels. Like tobacco research, it is simply a matter of time before fluoridation will be stopped.
LikeLike
Ken,
You are silent regarding police powers. If you are unwilling to admit you were wrong regarding police powers being used to fluoridate public water, then your ego is stronger than facts. Your reputation for honesty dictates you admit when the facts are irrefutable.
Bill
LikeLike
You say my comment that most public health experts in developed countries are opposed to fluoridation as bull shit. Read the literature on both sides of the controversy. Most European and…
Spare us the waffle.
Name a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
Judgment needs to remember that:
A. police powers are used to force everyone to ingest a dilute amount of highly toxic substance….
Are you talking about Chlorine?
It sounds like it.
Chlorine is a highly toxic substance…so…..um?
It’s stupid argument that will get you nowhere, Bill.
You have nothing.
LikeLike
Bill,
“Science should be based on facts with good judgment rather than belief in traditional myths.”
A. “Police Powers are used to force everyone to ingest a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance”. This is your idea of ‘ facts with good judgement’? The use of inflammatory rhetoric and a misrepresentation of the facts in order to fit your personal ideology? No one is “forced” to ingest fluoridated water by “police powers” or anything else. You are confusing the term “inconvenience” with the term “force”, and the concept of public health initiative with the inflammatory concept of “police powers”. We ingest “a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance” every time we ingest ANYTHING.
B. Fine, perform whatever randomized controlled trials you wish on the effect of a minuscule few parts per million of a fluoride ion, identical to that which man has been ingesting, in the same concentration range as exists in fluoridated water, since the beginning of time. In the meantime, in the absence of any adverse effects, there is no valid reason to cease water fluoridation while you perform your tests.
C. Cite the peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate your implication that fluoridation is the sole variable in your claim that “Countries without fluoridation or fluoride salt have decreased caries to the same low levels.” Snapshots of data do not constitute peer- reviewed studies.
D. “……swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing….”. This is just a statement demonstrating ignorance of the mechanism of action fluoridation. Go back and review the literature on topical and systemic actions of fluoridation before attempting this nonsensical argument again.
E. “Most developed countries (most EU countries, China, etc.) do not fluoridate their water. Most people in the world do not get fluoridation.” How exactly is this of any relevance, whatsoever, to the decisions local leaders make in the best interests of their citizenry, in accordance with the conditions that exist in their own locales?
F. Please cite specifically where the EPA and a consensus of “experts” state that the mild to very mild dental fluorosis that may occur with water fluoridation is an adverse effect, or that it outweighs the benefits of water fluoridation.
G. “Cessation of fluoridation in communities has not seen an increase in caries”
Cite specifically the peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate this.
H. “Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels.” Cite specifically the peer-reviewed research, since the 2006 NRC report, to which you refer.
“Like tobacco research, it is simply a matter of time before fluoridation will be stopped.” Not hardly. According to the latest CDC report, The United States is now currently 74.6% fluoridated, an INCREASE from the 73.4% in 2011.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Bill
A I dont see any police outside my door forcing me to ingest fluoride
B 70 years of use should be enough
C Show me the proof
D see A
E E.U countries use other means to get fluoride, China has high levels of fluoride in groundwater. And most of the world is not on water from a public supply, so that could be why most of the world do not use fluoride
F And mild fluorosis is a big problem, not at .7PPM
G If you read the reports you will find that fluoride use at an early age is the most important time to build a solid tooth structure and if fluoride is stopped the benefits are already laid down .The children that suffer are the ones born into a non fluoride environment
H The research is getting stronger not weaker and the statement is pie in the sky stuff
LikeLike
Bill the real story here is you use China as an example of a country that has stopped fluoride Yes? And the organ grinder has all this research that fluoride in china causes them all to get brain disease and all the nasty photos of bone deformity, So you have to wonder about the quality of the arguments that are at the bottom of the barrel
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
You may not have read when I explained to you that Police Powers in the USA mean someting very different to what they mean to people here in NZ.
Are you being culturally insensitive here when you pursue this line of inquiry?
My advice to you is to substitute the words “Police Powers” with “The law”.
And yes, my apologies you did give me answer (albeit confusing) to my question on the Levy (recent Osteosacarma Study)
Regards
LikeLike
Bill,
You say my comment that most public health experts in developed countries are opposed to fluoridation as bull shit. Read the literature on both sides of the controversy. Most European and…
Spare us the waffle.
Name a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
Seconded, your claim was “The majority consensus of public health experts and dental associations in developed countries of the world are opposed to fluoridation.”
Show us a sample their statements, opposing the practice of fluoridation. Until you do, and show it to be a majority position, I still call you out as talking bullshit.
LikeLike
Richard,
I posted a long list above and if you read the literature you would know the list of scientific and government organizations opposed to fluoridation is very long. I have spent over 11,000 hours in the last few years on fluoridation. If you only read one side of the literature, then you will get a biased view.
Do your homework and you will stop supporting fluoridation of public water.
Bill
LikeLike
Bill claims “the list of scientific and government organizations opposed to fluoridation is very long.”
But he just can’t think of a single one at the moment.
This is becoming a pattern.
>
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Slott.
I have given you state and Federal law which define a highly toxic substance poison as one which causes violent sickness or death in mice at less than 50 mg/kg bw. (Mice are about 7 times less sensitive to fluoride). That is the legal definition and I have not seen any reputable scientist disagree with the legal definition of toxic and poison. You call the law, ” inflammatory rhetoric and a misrepresentation of the facts.” Are you also claiming that the SDWA ad the FDCA are inflammatory rhetoric and misrepresentation of facts? Is there any law which you abide by, or do you reject all laws of the land? The concentration of the highly toxic substance put into water is not part of the definition. Jurisdiction is determined based on the toxicity of the substance and intent of use.
Numerous court cases I posted to links earlier confirm fluoridation is provided under police powers. Do a web search for “fluoridation police powers.” Those in NZ may claim they do not fluoridate under police powers, but I would need to see their court cases. Under what authority can freedom of choice be taken away from someone to give them a highly toxic substance without their consent when, for example edentulous people, the substance has no benefit? Only authoritarian state power has such authority. Maybe a different term, but same authority.
Dr. Slott, you said: “No one is “forced” to ingest fluoridated water by “police powers” or anything else. You are confusing the term “inconvenience” with the term “force”, and the concept of public health initiative with the inflammatory concept of “police powers”. We ingest “a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance” every time we ingest ANYTHING.
Dr. Slott, if you read the law, highly toxic is specifically defined by both state and federal law. We do not ingest a highly toxic substance every time we ingest ANYTHING. Please provide laws and definitions for your terms. You are dead wrong and as a scientist you need to be much more careful before you make wild unsupported statements. And further, without label, it is virtually impossible to avoid fluoridated water even if a person drinks and bathes in bottled or reverse osmosis water because it is put into the manufacturing of foods and beverages.
B. Dr. Slott, you said, “Fine, perform whatever randomized controlled trials you wish on the effect of a minuscule few parts per million of a fluoride ion, identical to that which man has been ingesting, in the same concentration range as exists in fluoridated water, since the beginning of time. In the meantime, in the absence of any adverse effects, there is no valid reason to cease water fluoridation while you perform your tests.”
Before a substance is marketed with a health claim, the FDCA is very clear, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to gain FDA CDER approval. It is not the responsibility of the patient or public to do the research. The manufacturer needs to get the research, present it to the FDA CDER for them to evaluate whether the research shows effectiveness and safety. So far, the FDA CDER who are the best in the world evaluating research for effectiveness have said the research is incomplete. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to provide the research. It is illegal for manufacturers to market until the research has been approved by the FDA CDER. That is Federal and state law.
And further, Dr. Slott, it would be virtually impossible to gain human study approval for any RCT of fluoridation. Any university human research review would have difficulty approving a fluoridation study.
C. Dr. Slott said: ” Snapshots of data do not constitute peer- reviewed studies.” I am absolutely in agreement with you. That is why those manufacturing the fluoridated water must by law, provide quality studies. Snapshots simply do not provide enough confidence to give everyone an unapproved substance.
D. Bill said “……swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing….”. Dr. Slott said: “This is just a statement demonstrating ignorance of the mechanism of action fluoridation. Go back and review the literature on topical and systemic actions of fluoridation before attempting this nonsensical argument again.”
Dr. Slott. you make no sense because you didn’t calm down and read what I wrote. I’m not talking about topical. I said, “swallowing fluoride toothpaste.” Are you suggesting swallowing fluoride in the form of fluoridated water and swallowing the same amount in toothpaste is different? I am not saying topical is the same as systemic. Please read my words. I’m saying SWALLOW a pea size of toothpaste. Each pea size of toothpaste, the normal amount of fluoridated toothpaste which should be used for brushing, has 1/4 mg of fluoride, the same as a glass of fluoridated water. 1/4 mg and 1/4 mg. Same thing. Don’t call me ignorant with personal attacks when you don’t read what I say.
E. Bill said; “Most developed countries (most EU countries, China, etc.) do not fluoridate their water. Most people in the world do not get fluoridation.” Dr. Slott responded: “How exactly is this of any relevance, whatsoever, to the decisions local leaders make in the best interests of their citizenry, in accordance with the conditions that exist in their own locales?” Bill responds: “The relevance is in response to claims that most or all scientists support fluoridation. Most do not support fluoridation and most don’t fluoridate.” Dr. Slott, you and I understand that if everyone or no one agrees with a scientific theory, that does not make the theory right or wrong. But some on this thread seem to think that science is a team sport and if more people believe one way or another, then the majority has the truth. As you and I know well, the majority is not always right.
F. Dr. Slott asks: “Please cite specifically where the EPA and a consensus of “experts” state that the mild to very mild dental fluorosis that may occur with water fluoridation is an adverse effect, or that it outweighs the benefits of water fluoridation.” Dr. Slott. You fail to understand the Safe Drinking Water Act and the roll of the EPA when you ask “that it outweighs the benefits . . . “. The EPA is prohibited by Congress from determining the benefits of any therapeutic chemical or to regulate any substance added to water with the intent to treat or prevent disease in humans. You are looking to the wrong Federal agency to determine the benefits of fluoridation.
G. “Cessation of fluoridation in communities has not seen an increase in caries”
Cite specifically the peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate this.
Dr. Slott: Do I have to do your homework at every turn and every bend in the fluoridation review. Certainly you have read the studies. Look at British Columbia, now 99% fluoridation free and the lowest rates of caries in all of Canada. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562
Cuba: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780 “following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds (from 1. 1 to 0.8) and DMFS (from 1.5 to 1.2). In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease (DMFT from 2.1 to 1.1; DMFS from 3.1 to 1. 5), while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased from 4.8 (1973) and 33.3 (1982) up to 55.2%.”
East Germany: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515 “Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased during the years 1993-96, following the cessation of water fluoridation. ”
Thylstrup-Fejerskov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16674751 “When fluoride was removed from the water supply in 1992, the prevalence and severity of TFI scores decreased significantly from the 1993-94 survey cycle when compared with the 1996-97 and 2002-03 survey cycles.”
Dr. Slott, as a student and educator of fluoridation, I’m sure you have seen those and other studies on cessation.
H. “Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels.” Cite specifically the peer-reviewed research, since the 2006 NRC report, to which you refer.
I posted them earlier and Ken removed them. So I don’t think he would permit me to post more research. For some reason, he is opposed to too much research posted which opposes fluoridation. You can look the research up. Specifically, look at blood serum fluoride concentrations. The research is nailing the last few nails in the coffin of fluoridation. Read the research.
“Like tobacco research, it is simply a matter of time before fluoridation will be stopped.” Not hardly. According to the latest CDC report, The United States is now currently 74.6% fluoridated, an INCREASE from the 73.4% in 2011.
Dr. Slott. Please read your comment at E above which to this very point of “majority rules the truth” states, “How exactly is this of any relevance”.
We both use “majority position” because some people think the “majority” of people have greater wisdom when it comes to science. Like the majority of people at one time thought the world was flat so the world is flat. . . “the majority can’t be wrong.” (Obviously not true.) So providing lists of supporters on one side or the other is simply not significant evidence.
Dr. Slott, just because more in the USA are being fluoridated because of false marketing, tells us clearly that those promoting fluoridation have not read the research. You keep asking for research which has been published repeatedly for years. A clear sign that you are marketing a public health policy without a careful review of the scientific literature. It is time for you to carefully examine both sides of the fluoridation controversy. I assure you, a careful review of research is in the words of a University of Washington Public Health MD Professor “like a knee in the gut.”
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Most people don’t have flush toilets, hot and cold running water, washing machines or refrigerators. So?
LikeLike
I posted a long list above
yeah right, sure you did, can you link to it please, we’ll see if it matches your claim.
I have spent over 11,000 hours in the last few years on fluoridation.
I don’t think that revelation is having the impression upon me that you hope for, whatever that might be…
… 11,000 hours, and you haven’t yet collated a handy file of the position statements of all the public health authorities you claim oppose to the practice of fluoridation.
LikeLike
I have spent over 11,000 hours in the last few years on fluoridation.
Name a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
(…waits patiently…)
LikeLike
“Those in NZ may claim they do not fluoridate under police powers, but I would need to see their court cases”
How many times have I told him?
I have tried haven’t I?
Really Really Really Super dee duper hard….
Bajibber…bajabber…bajim…
LikeLike
Some people have a brain like a computer you just want to punch the information in
LikeLike
Yes, and scientific consensus is not just any old consensus e.g. Flat Earths, Witchcraft, Intelligent Design and other conspiracy theories, it’s a consensus based on evidence, experimentation and rational implication.
LikeLike
Yep we have CaneToads, smoking, amalgams, asbestos, 3.6% Dental Fluorosis none of it matters science has spoken
LikeLike
“Punctuation marks are symbols that indicate the structure and organization of written language, as well as intonation and pauses to be observed when reading aloud.
In written English, punctuation is vital to disambiguate the meaning of sentences. For example, “woman, without her man, is nothing” (emphasizing the importance of men) and “woman: without her, man is nothing” (emphasizing the importance of women) have greatly different meanings, as do “eats shoots and leaves” (to mean “consumes plant growths”) and “eats, shoots and leaves” (to mean “eats firstly, fires a weapon secondly, and leaves the scene thirdly”).”
We’re dealing with morons here.
LikeLike
Cedric, although I was the first to correct Ian on his grammar we have to be a little careful, we cannot assume English is everyone’s first language.
LikeLike
(I could have done with another comma in preceding comment).
LikeLike
Fair point.
Ian could be struggling to communicate in a foreign language.
Struggling and failing consistently.
LikeLike
Ok, Bill, it seems we’re going to have to go back through your laundry list, yet once again.
A. The only thing you have presented in regard to the law, is your opinion as to how you wish it to be be applied to water fluoridation. This is meaningless. Again, if you want to argue your personal interpretation of the law, take it to court. I did not call the “law” inflammatory and misrepresentative of the facts. I called your rhetoric inflammatory and misrepresentative of the facts. I stand behind that statement. You are confusing the “law” with your own, personal interpretation of the law. Two different things.
There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels. This includes plain water. If you want to describe fluoride at the optimal level as “a dilute amount of a highly toxic substance”, then you need to use that same description for ANY substance that we ingest.
Once again, the FDCA has no jurisdiction over fluoride added to water at the optimal level. In the United States. the EPA has full jurisdiction and regulatory control over it. Thus, it is irrelevant about that which you deem the FDCA to be “very clear”.
“….it would be virtually impossible to gain human study approval for any RCT of fluoridation.”
Yes, Bill, exactly as I have been saying. So you might as well cease demanding RCTs for fluoridation. Since RCTs are “virtually impossible”, we must use the next best thing, which are observational studies. We have countless, high quality, peer-reviewed, observational studies demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation, and no proof of any adverse effects.
C. You agree that snapshots of data are insufficient to arrive at conclusions. Yet, you use snapshots of data to make this claim: “Countries without fluoridation or fluoride salt have decreased caries to the same low levels. Clearly, fluoridation is not required to reduce caries in the public at large”. Again, provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific study to support your implication that efficacy of fluoridation is the sole variable in the comparison of caries incidence between “fluoridated and non-fluoridated” countries. As you have agreed, snapshots of data are not sufficient to make such a claim.
D. “Dr. Slott, you make no sense because you didn’t calm down and read what I wrote. I’m not talking about ‘topical’, I said ‘swallowing fluoride toothpaste.’ Are you saying swallowing fluoride in the form of fluoridated water and swallowing the same amount in toothpaste is different?”
Bill, here is exactly what you wrote:
“Police powers are used to give it to everyone when simply swallowing a pea size of toothpaste would do the same thing and provide freedom without police powers”.
You equate swallowing a “pea size” of fluoridated toothpaste with water fluoridation. I fail to see how your statement could be read any differently. I stand by my statement. To claim that swallowing a “pea size” of fluoridated toothpaste “would do the same thing” as water fluoridation, demonstrates your ignorance of the topical and systemic actions of water fluoridation. That you don’t understand the fallacy of your statement is even more evidence of your total lack of understanding of how fluoridation works. You, obviously didn’t take my advice, so, again, I urge you to research the mechanism of action of fluoridation before attempting this nonsensical argument again.
E. “Most don’t support fluoridation and most don’t fluoridate”. Fine, Bill, provide your list of worldwide scientists who do not support fluoridation, as compared with those who do support it, and then your calculations as to how opposing scientists comprise “most” of the scientists in the world. Also, provide your factual evidence that the reason countries may not fluoridate is due to these “most” scientists who do not support fluoridation. Your opinion is not factual evidence.
F. “The EPA is prohibited by Congress from determining the benefits of any therapeutic chemical or to regulate any substance added to water with the intent to treat or prevent disease in humans. You are looking at the wrong Federal agency to determine the benefits of fluoridation.”
First of all, Bill, if this were true, then the EPA would be prohibited from regulating chlorine, ammonia, or any other substance added to water for the purpose of preventing disease in humans. That is precisely for what these chemicals are added to water, and they are most certainly regulated by the EPA, exactly as is fluoride added to water at the optimal level.
Second, your statement was:
“EPA and experts (based on dental fluorosis) agree that most or many millions of children ingest too much fluoride.”
Your clear implication with this claim was that the EPA and “experts” deem fluoride addition to water detrimental because they “agree” that millions of children ingest too much fluoride. I’m not the one “looking to the wrong Federal agency” for anything. I simply asked you to provide valid support for your implication that the EPA and “experts” deem fluoridation detrimental, based on incidence of mild to very mild dental fluorosis. If this was not the implication you intended with your claim about “agreement” of these entities, fine, explain what is the relevance of your claim, in regard to water fluoridation.
G. “Dr. Slott: Do I have to do your homework at every turn and every bend in the fluoridation review.”
Bill, I’d be happy if you would simply do your OWN homework from time to time. In regard to cessation of fluoridation, you do realize of course that the children cited in your studies have already received the benefit of fluoridation within their developing teeth, therefore the improvements in rates of decay would still be attributable to fluoridation, even though it had ceased for whatever time period.
Additionally, contrary to your attempt at implying a simplistic conclusion that these studies indicate non-effectiveness of fluoride, no.
“CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a complicated pattern of disease following cessation of fluoridation. Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population with generally low caries experience, and living in an affluent setting with widely accessible dental services. There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas.”
——http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11153562/
And, the La Salud study is an excellent example of how fluoridation and other preventive measures can work together to initiate and maintain dental decay resistance. Fluoridation at the early ages followed by measures such as fluoride rinse programs as they grow older can combine to be very effective toward maintaining a lifetime of good oral health.
——http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10601780/
H. Sorry, Bill, it’s not my responsibility to “look the research up” to support your claims. Again, please cite peer-reviewed studies to support your claim that “Research since 2006 NRC report has been predominantly finding health risks at lower and lower exposure levels”.
“Dr. Slott, just because more in the USA are being fluoridated because of false marketing, tells us clearly that those promoting fluoridation have not read the research. You keep asking for research which has been published repeatedly for years. A clear sign that you are marketing a public health policy without a careful review of the scientific literature. It is time for you to carefully examine both sides of the fluoridation controversy. I assure you, a careful review of research is in the words of a University of Washington Public Health MD Professor ‘like a knee in the gut.’ ”
Bill, please provide valid evidence for your opinion that fluoridation in the U.S. Is due to “false marketing”. Be specific as to whom is providing this “false marketing” and provide evidence as to why you deem it to be “false”.
I see nothing that “tells us that those promoting fluoridation have not read the research”. I keep asking for this “research” you claim exists, but you continue to fail to provide any. Your personal opinion does not constitute “research”.
I’m not “marketing” anything, and, as your comments have aptly demonstrated, I have far better researched, and have a much clearer understanding of the issue of water fluoridation than do you.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Is that right Mr Deal; so is caffeine and chlorine. but I dont see you jumping up and down about that, yery selective are we not
LikeLike
Dr. Slott,
You have not read my posts. You have not read the laws I cited. You are not paying attention and then you suggested it is all my opinion. NO YOU ARE WRONG. Try reading the SDWA yourself and ask the EPA.
The SDWA says, “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ” 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11):
So I asked the EPA what that meant and they responded, “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.” FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10
Before we go through the other items and I first need to spoon feed you with the basics. If you understand the two statements above, and you read the EPA DRI and other EPA documents, and the NRC 2006 report, the EPA is consistent that they do not regulate the addition of fluoride to public water. EPA scientists admit that fluoride is a protected pollutant.
So lets work on that one item before we proceed to the others. More than one item seems to get too confusing.
Bill
LikeLike
Hello Bill,
Nice to see you’re back…shame you’re not talking to me.
“You have not read my posts. You have not read the laws I cited. You are not paying attention and then you suggested it is all my opinion”
Well if that’s not calling the kettle black!!
You are really DO have a sense of humour don’t you!
(chuckle chuckle, belly laugh, harrumph..)
LikeLike
But just so I won’t be accused of not adding anything substantive;
Like a drowning Charlton Heston grasping for his Colt 45 in a vain effort that it will keep him afloat, you cling desperately to your idea that water fluoridation is “illegal”.
Bill.
You are arguing minutiae failing to understand that when you finally go,
“A Ha! gotcha!” The world has ticked on by, completely unaware of your desperate, “I’m here to save the world” musings.
As said so many times before in this post, if you don’t like it/don’t agree with it then get together with Attorney Deal and change it. Don’t pretend to be a lawyer.
I suggest you do however go to Law School if you are serious about trying to change the world. Apart from giving you several lessons in Laws 101, I do recall you had an issue with definitions of some words… “jurisdiction” seems to ring a bell. Perhaps it was because you “put it were you shouldn’t ‘ave so regularly” – so to speak.
As an aside, don’t you think it a bit strange that although Jamesrobertdeal is a lawyer from your neck of the woods, he hasn’t given you a few pointers on the legal system or jumped to your aid when the going gets tough? Or has he?
That would explain a lot!
Happy New Year Bill!
LikeLike
Fluoridation violates numerous laws. Just because those laws have not been enforced does not mean that fluoridation is thereby legal. Fluoridationists are scofflaws. They are scoffers in general. They have no substantive arguments, so they just scoff. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/illegal.
LikeLike
“So I asked the EPA what that meant and they responded, “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.” FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10″
Primary sources Bill, Primary sources!
You asked, they answered?
You are being a silly Billy
So….:”The Safe Drinking Water Act”
Who’s Act? What provision of the Act? When was it enacted?
and you will love this….which jurisdiction does it cover?
Bill. BILL BILL, C’mon, we’ve been over this….
LikeLike
Ah! Mr. Deal.
Here we go again. Scrape up a few more gullible clients for your class action? This isn’t for you. Its for those who might be “impressed” by your blather.
Mr Deal, failed lobbyist and self appointed expert takes stuff out of context and like many of his friends uses scare tactics. It’s about dosage you see. Every toxin known to science exists in the environment. Every breath of air contains a few molecules of lead, arsenic and water, tea leaves, fish, and many other things contain trace amounts of fluoride, mercury, magnesium. Many if not most of the minerals in some degree are essential to animal well being. Some environments even contain toxic levels of fluoride and other minerals. People generally avoid living in those places. but even in those toxic (to us) environment life thrives in one form or another.
For optimal dental health, the World Health Organization recommends a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre), depending on climate.[6] Adverse effects are possible at fluoride levels far above this recommended dosage. The U.S. Health and Human Services Department recommends 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water – the lower limit of the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
What with tooth paste and water fluoride levels have increased in a number of environments to the point where people might stray above the optimal level. This is (or meant to be) continuously monitored and adjustments made where necessary. Tooth paste manufacturers are not forced (by any imagined “police action”) to include fluoride. They do so because they
a) recognise it is a good thing and
b) recognise their customers know it is a good thing.
see:http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/08/us-usa-fluoride-idUSTRE7064CM20110108
In high concentrations, soluble fluoride salts are toxic and skin or eye contact with high concentrations of many fluoride salts is dangerous. Referring to a common salt of fluoride, sodium fluoride (NaF), the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[1][2][3]Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg) than lethal doses.[4] Although helpful for dental health in low dosage, chronic exposure to fluoride in large amounts interferes with bone formation. In this way, the greatest examples of fluoride poisoning arise from fluoride-rich ground water.[5]
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/oral-care/products/fluoride-poisoning.htm
If you want to avoid the dreaded contamination you would have to live in a sealed chamber with all of your biological requirements artificially synthesised. You might as well live in an asteroid.
In the meantime let us apply common sense and science to making our environment as beneficial for as many as possible as practically as possible.
LikeLike
Chlorine is a health related additive to reticulated water Bill! Why don’t you tick them off about that? An ill considered response by some EPA functionary might serve your purposes Bill but it ain’t going to stand up in a court of law.
LikeLike
Chlorine evaporates out in a few hours if you just leave a pitcher sitting out. Fluoride, lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and thallium do not evaporate out. Chlorine is there to kill bacteria. The other contaminants are add allegedly to affect health.
LikeLike
You are not qualified to say that a large amount of fluoride, lead, and arsenic plus a small amounts of mercury, cadmium, and thallium are safe for all people to consume for life, with some people drinking ten times as much as others. All to reduce tooth decay a few percent, when other methods are just as good or better. The fact that you defend such a preposterous idea shows that you fluoridationists are suckers.
LikeLike
It does get in!
LikeLike
James is back!
I’m sure Cedric won’t mind me pasting his comment
Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.
I replied :
You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.
Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
And then you ran away.
This happened on the 3rd of December on this very thread.
Still waiting here.
(…crickets chirping…)
(…James Robert Attorney Deal babbles away and furiously waves his hands in the air. People point at him and laugh….)
(…more crickets chirping…)
James?
Hello?
Name them. How hard can it be?
Name them.
LikeLike
Fluoridationists are scofflaws. They are scoffers in general. They have no substantive arguments, so they just scoff.
“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” – Carl Sagan
LikeLike
Well james if your facts were watertight. FANN would not have to employ you to put the frighteners up any city council that decides that fluoride is a good thing and decides to hold a referendum on it instead of your preferred tribunal ,that you can control. IT is a case of we cant win by fair means because the people see through the lies we will prosecute them . One day we might win
LikeLike
Fuuny you guys start all the class actions. that tells me something about your facts
LikeLike
Ah James,
just like old times!
So what laws do water fluoridation violate?
Name one
LikeLike
Fluoridation violates numerous laws. according to James Deal.
Even if so, so what?
Fluoridation doesn’t violate any law in NZ.
This legal thing is more than a bit of a non-argument.
Laws are rewritten and change, laws are different in different times and places.
There is nothing sacrosanct about law.
LikeLike
I take it you leave a pitcher out James? That’s not all you leave out!
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,
“EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a ‘chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.’ ”
“Do not ignore scientific information just because you disagree with it, which is what fluoridationists do.”
Did you just now discover this blurb of info on “fluoridealert.org”? C’mon, man! You’re getting behind! Your fellow antifluoridationist copy/pasters have been pasting that one for months now.
Here’s a flash for you. Fluoridationists do not “ignore” RELEVANT scientific information. We simply know what is important, what is not….what is relevant, what is not. Those EPA lists do not take into consideration concentration levels. They just classify substances according to a particular characteristic they may have at ANY concentration. If you’ll actually read the lists on the primary EPA site, you’ll see a lot of familiar substances, substances that you ingest every day, AT THEIR PROPER CONCENTRATIONS. While fluoride at high concentrations is most certainly toxic, as is every substance known to man, at the minuscule concentration of 0.7 ppm, it is not toxic in any manner, “neuro-“, or otherwise.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steven. We need to remind ourselves that in general we don’t change our minds on issues we closely identify with. This is the moral identity thesis which had much going for it. A particular view becomes sacrosanct because it becomes part of our psychological identity. We cannot avoid endorsing or because that causes cognitive dissonance. It amounts to self denial, something which sadly results in self destructive behaviour even suicide on some cases. This is part of the Neo Humean theory of psychological motivation.
The clinical research work on this was done by the brilliant Gus Blasi and his students in response to the moral development thesis of Piaget and Kohlberg. This is part of the thesis on group selection. Individuals don’t change, they fail or become irrelevant. The frequency norm shifts in the frequency distribution curve in response to changes in the environment. (pity Dawkins cannot understand this). Some plausible speculative generalisations can be drawn from this. Individuals with rather fragile or vulnerable self images tend to be more reluctant to submit their moral and intellectual commitments to dispassionate scrutiny. We all have theoretical views of the world. If we cling too tenaciously to misguided views on the grounds that it minimises cognitive dissonance, we are likely to be left “high and dry” or discarded by subsequent realities.
LikeLike
Bill,
Yes, I have read your posts. I simply have no interest in your garbled opinions as to how you think statutes should apply to water fluoridation, or what you think you have been told by someone in the EPA, or elsewhere. Your opinion in this regard is irrelevant.
Once again…….yes the SDWA states that no national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance…….” This Act prohibits any NATIONAL regulation from requiring addition of fluoride. It does not prohibit local and state authorities from so doing. The EPA does not require the addition of fluoride. It simply regulates the safety of this substance by setting mandated maximum concentration levels. These safety standards cannot be exceeded by any state or local authority which does elect to add fluoride to its drinking water systems.
The EPA arrives at it safety standards through periodic, independent evaluation of its safety maximums (MCL) by the National Research Council. The current maximum safety level mandated by the EPA is 4.0 ppm. State and local authorities are entirely free to add fluoride to their water, as long as it does not exceed a concentration of 4.0 ppm. The latest NRC safety review, 2006, recommended lowering the mandated maximum down from 4.0 ppm. The EPA has not yet done so, presumably because fluoride levels in U.S. water is generally not high enough for this to be an issue. Nevertheless, the EPA is expected to lower this mandated level. The 2006 NRC Committee was charged also with evaluating the adequacy of the EPA secondary MCL. This level, 2.0 ppm, is not mandated, but the NRC was charged with evaluating it, nonetheless. The 2006 NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the 2.0 ppm secondary maximum level, thus deeming this level to be safely protective of the public. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, well under the EPA mandated and non-mandated maximum safety levels, one third the level deemed adequately protective of the safety of the public, by the 2096 NRC Committee in Fluoride.
Your quote of what you claim you were told by the EPA is erroneous. The SDWA does NOT prohibit the addition of any substance to drinking water water for health related purposes. It prohibits the FEDERAL MANDATING of addition of any substance for health related purposes. Do you understand the difference?
Thus, as most intelligent people can plainly see, while the EPA does not mandate the addition, or not, of fluoride to drinking water, it DOES regulate the safety level of this substance when added by local and state authorities. Fluoride is no more more a “protected pollutant” than is any other additive to drinking water.
Now, do you understand why your garbled opinions and misinterpretations of the law are of no interest to me, and are irrelevant to the issue?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,
“Fluoridation violates numerous laws.”
Name these “numerous laws” that you claim fluoridation violates. Your
failure to do so will be taken as an admission by you that you understand your claim to be patently false…..which it is.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,
“You are not qualified to say that a large amount of fluoride, lead, and arsenic plus a small amounts of mercury, cadmium, and thallium are safe for all people to consume for life, with some people drinking ten times as much as others.”
Please specify what is your definition of “a large amount”. If that to which you refer is the minuscule few parts per million of fluoride in fluoridated water, and/or the minuscule few parts per BILLION of heavy metal contaminants that are found in fluoridated water, it is the EPA which has deemed these levels to be safe for human consumption. If you contend that the EPA is not “qualified” to make these assessments then you need to take your legal skills, whatever they may be, to court and attempt to make your case. I would caution you, however, that most judges will frown upon the total ignorance you obviously have of an issue you attempt to bring before them.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Slott,
Tooth decay and gum disease are caused by bacteria and amoeba. There are better ways to kill bacteria and amoeba than by applying fluoride. Iodine in a water pic does a better job.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLxe_0zY2dE&feature=youtu.be
James Robert Deal
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Slott,
It is incorrect for you to say that EPA has established MCLs and MCLGs for contaminants and therefore that the EPA has “deemed these levels to be safe for human consumption.”
EPA MCLs and MCLGs are not authorization to add any amount of contaminants. They are requirements in the case of MCLs and goals in the case of MCLGs about removing contaminants which occur naturally or through pollution. Using MCLs and MCLGs as a green light to add trillions of atoms and molecules of fluoride ion, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium is a misuse of the MCLs and MCLGs.
The National Research Council made this clear in the 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride at page 13:
“In 1986, EPA established an MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] and MCL [maximum contaminant level] for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and an SMCL [special contaminant level] of 2 mg/L. These guidelines are restrictions on the total amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water. … EPA’s drinking-water guidelines are not recommendations about adding fluoride to drinking water to protect the public from dental caries. … Instead, EPA’s guidelines are maximum allowable concentrations in drinking water intended to prevent toxic or other adverse effects that could result from exposure to fluoride.”
So quit trying to defend adding any of these contaminants to drinking water by pointing to MCLs and MCLGs. They are not authorizations to “fill her up” to the MCL or MCLG limit.
The EPA or FDA could outlaw fluoridation. Only the FDA could authorize it because fluoridation meets the federal definition of a drug which is:
Fluoride mixed with water at 1 ppm or .7 ppm meets federal definitions of the terms “drug” and “medication.” The Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) defines a drug as an article
… intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animal. 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B)
Chlorine is there to kill bacteria. Fluoride is added to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. That’s the law. It has been ignored because the FDA has been to a large extent taken over by the industries it regulates, but it is still the law, and someday it will be enforced.
James Robert Deal
LikeLike
Dr. Kennedy, DDS, recommends irrigating with 2% iodine-iodide.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLxe_0zY2dE&feature=youtu.be
James Robert Deal
LikeLike
Mr. Deal,
Chlorine is there to kill bacteria. [therefore isn’t defined as a drug according to blah blah]
Chlorine is there to kill bacteria and so prevent disease.
Your argument is that antibiotics aren’t drugs but are only used for killing bugs.
Give it a rest, you’re boring us to death with your jelly wrestling.
How about answering which vaccinations you oppose and which you don’t, “due to lack of adequate testing” (if I may paraphrase you).
LikeLike
Buy Buy Buy….nice plug Robert, don’t think I will buy it though…
A New Years gift for our faithful Attorney…
Enjoy!!
LikeLike
Mr. Deal
Look, here’s the thing….you’re playing with the big kids here. The people on this site have each forgotten more about this issue than that which you seem to think you know. We’ve repeatedly seen and repeatedly refuted all the lame, “fluoridealert.org” arguments you keep attempting to make, and are frankly tired of so doing. My advice to you is to either take your uninformed junk to an uninformed audience, or do whatever it takes to properly educate yourself on this issue. Otherwise you will just keep making a fool out of yourself and laying yourself wide open to fully justified ridicule.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Thing is…most science denial flavours seem to shout their crazy crazy from the roof tops with a sort of joyous pride, even to the extent of advertising their stupidity for all to see on Youtube…
What I don’t get, is when it comes to vaccination, they duck and dive, terrified of telling others what they believe in?
Anyway, it took me a while but I think I have discovered who our friendly Attorney really is…makes so much sense
LikeLike
Mr. Deal
The EPA does not not “authorize” the addition of fluoride to drinking water supplies. State and local authorities are the only entities allowed by law to do so. However, they are only allowed to do so if they do not exceed EPA mandated levels of safety. The EPA mandated level of safety, its primary MCL, for fluoride. Is 4.0 ppm. As long as fluoride does not exceed this concentration, state and local officials are entirely free to add it. This certainly violates no laws.
What I have stated is that the EPA bases its safety maximum levels on periodic, independent evaluation by the National Research Council, the most recent evaluation having been done in 2006. This NRC committee was charged with evaluating the EPA primary MCL of 4.0 ppm and its secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm to adequately protect the public against adverse effects. By virtue of its not recommending lowering the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride deemed 2.0 ppm adequately protective of the public against adverse effects. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level deemed safe by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride.
Your standard antifluoridationist nonsense about fluoride at 0.7 ppm being a “drug” or “medication” has been attempted in court repeatedly by antifluoridationists. It has been rejected each and every time. You are certainly free to waste time and money attempting it again, but I don’t much like your chances. The EPA controls mineral additives to water, which includes fluoride at the optimal level, not the FDA.
Now, I again ask you to cite the “numerous laws” you claim are being violated by water fluoridation. As yet, you have, as has been fully expected, failed to provide even one.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Watch the whole clip…seriously…it all fits into place…
LikeLike
Mr. Deal
Do you seriously think anyone with a modicum of intelligence cares one iota what Dr. Kennedy, DDS, recommends? He’s the former President of that fringe group, the IAOMT, who put together the ridiculous FLUORIDATE! YouTube video, for gosh sakes.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
You only have to watch 5 mins of said video to see the lies and exaggerations popping out.
LikeLike
What I don’t get, is when it comes to vaccination, they duck and dive, terrified of telling others what they believe in?
Is vaccination a bridge too far?
Surely not.
A casual observer can spot their endorsements of anti-vaccination on their anti-fluoride websites and in comments.
Yet poke them with a stick on the issue directly and they get all snakey.
Same thing happens with Intelligent Design Creationists.
One of my favourite questions for them was how old they think the Earth is?
Almost always sent them into a tizzy.
There an overlap in the people who reject the theory of Evolution and also reject the Earth being 4.5 billion years old.
That’s not a coincidence.
I suppose it’s a stretch to support the nutty idea of two wildly successful global scientific conspiracy theories happening ….at the same time in different, unrelated fields.
Rejecting the scientific consensus on one issue establishes a precedent.
The road taken to reject that particular consensus also lets you reject a different, unrelated scientific consensus.
Take a good hard look at the anti-fluoridationists.
See what they do.
Look at how they promote their ideas.
See also what they refuse to do too.
There’s nothing special about them. They are just one flavour out of many. They are only repeating well-established patterns already laid down by other groups with nothing to do with anti-fluoridation.
NCSE tackles climate change denial
LikeLike
Ken Perrott,
Your “scientific” debate has failed in its intentions and has succeed in only squandering people’s precious time and energy. In the end, I must consider that this has been your real intention despite your pronouncements to being constructive. It’s one thing to think you know what’s best for someone else, but it’s entirely something else to insist on it for everyone. Though you say you don’t; I know you do or you would not take such exception with those of us who oppose fluoridation as public policy.
It is not humanly possible to prove beyond a doubt that no living person or animal could be harmed, no matter how small the amount, by ingesting fluoridation chemicals. And, everyone intuitively knows this. Therefore, when you argue indefatigably for the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, one will invariably doubt your motives. Purposefully releasing fluorine ions into my water is a offense to me. This is an ethical question and not a scientific one. It’s not yours or any other person’s place to do. I see through your attempts to engage people with a scientific debate.
The debate has been a failure, you must admit. Neither yours nor Paul Connett’s efforts have brought any more general certainty to the question as evinced by the comments section. You have succeeded in creating another fight just exactly like so many others. What’s your real game?
It’s a trap you set for us and we fall for it over and over because we are authentic in our cause. For you, I can tell it is but ideology (or perhaps idolatry). Paul Connett debates people like you as a favor in an all-too-often vain attempt to give you a way out of your abstract convictions. You could thank him and gracefully concede that there indeed exists sufficient doubt for a reasonable person to oppose consuming fluoridation chemicals.
It should be enough for anyone with a conscience that his fellow refuses fluoridation. Even the millions of people who oppose it do not matter to you. We all must be misled, mistaken, paranoid or anti-science. In your frame of reference, it’s invalid for anyone to remain a skeptic. And you wonder why people are offended by you! As long as you’re engaged in a debate, you’re happy because you’re believe yourself to be the smarter, more scientific one. In truth, you’re wasting precious time and energy of principled people who merely wish to right a tremendous wrong.
“But show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves it dangerous”, you come again and we’re hooked once more. So much of what has gone on in your debate highlights many people’s incompetence with understanding and interpreting contemporary science. Congratulations! Are you satisfied now? Can’t you quit finally having demonstrated how amazingly scientific you are, content in knowing you really tried to bring us to the light?
What’s obvious, even to the unwashed, is that there is in fact a substantial debate going on by learned men and women and therefore doubt does reasonably persist. To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
It really is a fantasy to think that you can take the mantle of science upon yourself and convince us of how sorrowfully mistaken we are about fluoridation and its effects. It’s obscene when anyone gets hooked into your pretense of objectivity and engages in frivolous mind play, but at least they can be forgiven for their innocence. Their attempts to help you down from your perilous heights is honorable.
My request is that you leave us and our water alone. Seek platforms to get people to voluntarily increase their exposure to fluoride, if they choose, but through other means than our singular and priceless public water supply. If you really believe people are not getting enough fluoride down their throats, and your arguments, scientific or otherwise, are so convincing, then they need look no further than their bathroom cabinets where they are sure to find an abundant source of it in the form of toothpaste. I promise not to tattle on anyone who swallows some of it if you don’t.
LikeLike
No Clint! You leave us and our fluoridated water alone. We decided many years ago to optimise our F- level
in Dunedin for the sake of our kids and we ain’t gonna change it for crackpot born agains.
LikeLike
After all that rhetoric it boils down to a frustrated anti fluoride activist who like the sound of there own voice in print. Nothing new here. If you got your head out of the sand and looked at the mountains of research done by real people, and not some retired activist,who {has never had any real papers accepted from any recognized university or peer reviewed publication on the subject} is trying to rip the public and feather his own nest without any real stand alone proof,. And if his story is so watertight ,why does he need a legal team to bully any one who disagrees with his ideology
LikeLike
It is not humanly possible to prove beyond a doubt that no living person or animal could be harmed, no matter how small the amount, by ingesting fluoridation chemicals.
Burden of proof, dummy. It does not shift.
What’s obvious, even to the unwashed, is that there is in fact a substantial debate going on by learned men and women and therefore doubt does reasonably persist.
No there isn’t.
Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) on the moon landings is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) on evolution is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
To question a monolithic science (as you would have us believe it to be) on the dangers of smoking is nothing one should be ashamed of, and I hope people stop taking your bait.
…and therefore doubt does reasonably persist.
Yes, doubt.
So much doubt.
DOUBT
LikeLike
More diversions there “Cedric” Perrott, it would be great if you could actually contribute something intelligent. It would be a first. Although you are right about one thing:
“Burden of proof, dummy. It does not shift.”
Exactly, burden of proof is on the one making the claim: “[ ingesting dilute industrial fluorosilicate waste is great for the health and wellbeing of everyone at an uncontrolled dose, and it should be foisted on them all whether they like it or not ]”. Water fluoridation is quackery by definition.
Further: “Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation”. Sure, here’s 2. The EPA, and Nobel laureates in chemistry.
Tell us about your qualifications then Cedric, and your affiliations with orthodoxy.
LikeLike
More diversions there “Cedric” Perrott…
Hayden?
Over here.
(…points to self…)
There is no “Cedric” Perrot.
Stop listening to the voices in your head.
Focus.
“Burden of proof, dummy. It does not shift.”
Exactly, burden of proof is on the one making the claim: “[ ingesting…
Stop lying. It won’t help you. The words have not magically disappeared.
It is not humanly possible to prove beyond a doubt that no living person or animal could be harmed, no matter how small the amount, by ingesting fluoridation chemicals.
See?
Water fluoridation is quackery by definition.
Speak English.
“Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation”
Sure, here’s 2. The EPA, and Nobel laureates in chemistry.
Speak English.
1) The EPA does not reject the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
Google the EPA for yourself.
This is something that is checkable.
Lying will not help you.
2) “Nobel Laureates” are not a scientific community. The English language is not your friend.
Tell us about your qualifications then Cedric, and your affiliations with orthodoxy.
Ad hominem.
My qualifications are not important in the slightest.
Shame on you.
Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation.
(…crickets chirping…)
LikeLike
Cedric, when Hayden claims the EPA he really means just Bill Hirzy who was a union official at the EPA – but is no longer.
Isn’t that pathetic?
>
LikeLike
Very.
Yet clearly, such a lie works on some people out there.
This is the internet.
The EPA and the CDC and others have websites.
Anybody, absolutely anybody, could just google those websites and find out for themselves what the position of any scientific community is on any subject.
It takes not time at all.
There’s no need to just trust some anonymous source and get your scientific information second-hand.
Yet….they fall for such lies again and again.
Primary sources of information are a mystery to them.
LikeLike
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=206
read pages 205-206
LikeLike
Yes, Bob, what next??
LikeLike
Bob states: “read pages 205-206”
Yes, Bob, and on page 205 of the 2006 NRC Report, which you cite, is found:
“The high-fluoride area (Wamiao) had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area (Xinhuai) had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L).”
Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, the level within the range of the low-fluoride, control communities.
And on page 208 of the 2006 NRC report is found:
“The significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain. Most of the papers were brief reports and omitted important procedural details. For example, some studies used a modification of the Raven Progressive Matrix test but did not specify what the modifications were or describe how the test was administered. Most of the studies did not indicate whether the IQ tests were administered in a blinded manner. Some of the effects noted in the studies could have been due to stress induced by the testing conditions. Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. Despite this, the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence in populations that share similar languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and other commonalities.”
And, in regard to the quality of the Chinese studies in general. From the Harvard Review of 27 Chinese studies by Choi, grandjean, et al:
From page 4 Conclusion:
“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.”
——Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, Philippe Grandjean
Note: HIGH fluoride exposure. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, an extremely LOW concentration.
Page 9
“Six of the 34 studies identified were excluded due to missing information on the number of subjects or the mean and variance of the outcome (see Figure 1 for a study selection flow chart and Supplemental Material, Table S1 for additional information on studies that were excluded from the analysis). ”
Page 13
“Children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than those who lived in low exposure or control areas.”
Once again, note: HIGH fluoride exposure. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, an extremely LOW concentration, exactly in the range of the control groups in this study.
Page 13-14
“While most reports were fairly brief and complete information on covariates was not available, the results tended to support the potential for fluoride-mediated developmental neurotoxicity at relatively high levels of exposure in some studies.”
Incomplete information on covariates (controls). Relatively HIGH levels of fluoride. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, an extremely LOW concentration.
Page 15
“The present study cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, as the actual exposures of the individual children are not known. Misclassification of children in both high- and low-exposure groups may have occurred if the children were drinking water from other sources (e.g., at school or in the field).”
Page 15-16
“Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn. However, most deficiencies relate to the reporting, where key information was missing. The fact that some aspects of the study were not reported limits the extent to which the available reports allow a firm conclusion. Some methodological limitations were also noted. Most studies were cross-sectional, but this study design would seem appropriate in a stable population where water supplies and fluoride concentrations have remained unchanged for many years. The current water-fluoride level likely also reflects past developmental exposures. In regard to the outcomes, the inverse association persisted between studies using different intelligence tests, although most studies did not report age adjustment of the cognitive test scores.”
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Pingback: GUEST POST: Ken Perrott – Making sense of the fluoride debate « The Daily Blog
Pingback: Eat My Shorts | Skeptical Vegan
“The stand most health officials seem to be taking these days is that, until we get proof that fluoride is harmful, it will continue to be added to water. (This may seem ironic, given that companies who want to market new drugs must prove they are safe first whereas a drug already in our water will stay there until we prove it isn’t safe.)”
LikeLike
Pants – where are you quoting this from? Surely copypasta should be attributed.
It is rubbish of course. New drugs are not proved “safe” before they come on the market – and, in fact, nothing is “safe” in absolute terms. It is impossible to prove “safety” in absolute terms. What we can do is test a candidate drug for possible negative effects under the dosage and concentration it is meant to be used. The results determine if a drug is “safe” or not – and many drugs on the market are known to have negative effects for some people or some uses.
Fluoridated water has been used by communities for 70 years now so is well evalauted. There is absolutely no evidence of harm at this stage. If sometime in the future harm is found to occur of course it would be stopped.
So your quoted copypasta is just rubbish.
LikeLike
hi ken..you there,??
LikeLike
Of course I am. Go ahead with your questions.
Have you got a specific query about our debate?
LikeLike
More pushing Maori to others under the guise of fluoridation? as seen in some of your other pictures. not SS affiliated are you ? Silly question.
LikeLike
Steve, please explain? Your comment currently means nothing to me.
LikeLike
Your honesty was helpful Ken, your not there as a Anglo, but If your not racist now you soon won’t exist. As known the word racism has been repeatedly used for many to get there own way. New Zealand has not one Anglo left and in the UK many live undercover, they can’t walk down streets without being targeted. Using fluoridation to scientifically edify Maori intelligence not saying some are not whist pushing to others isn’t helpful helpful. The days of pointing the finger to one and name calling are gone as others are not that simple whether they be Maori , Indian etc.Again New Zealand has not one Anglo left.
LikeLike
Don’t know if you’ll ad the other comment, but I’ll give you an example. James isn’t my brother yet him and his partner claim to be while trying to introduce Maori children and family members and people he knows, and some Indian whilst having his partner backlash if I push and some are very pushable violent etc. Now they comment the’ll phone the police crying racism and what government in the world actually stands up for white people, one pehaps, but number wise New Zealand’s white people are finished or will be in 150 years there abouts. There are many starving white people on the planet now, and NZ Maori have been very clever in show casing this for there own people when pehaps they wern’t to obtain government money. Fluoridation beneficial ,an opinion.
LikeLike
Seperate your pictures and clips that your affiliates have put up and certain Maori may be freed from being pushed to a certain individual. Your other topics similar setup possibly. All worked out before.
LikeLike
You and your affiliates, some linked to the security service are feeding your clips and pictures with the writtings to push certain Maori to an individual I won’t name or individuals. This has been happening for years in New Zealand with the internet, it occurs on other blog sites as well, and in different countries. Same is happening to Part “Italians” possibly from NZ or Italty or elsewhere. Fluoridation a side issue to the objective.
LikeLike
Steve, you are away with the birds and seem to have another, racist, agenda here.
You are not discussing the material in this post so if you rant continues I will have to block you.
LikeLike
7:44
Replied (confirmed pushing Maori)
9:44
———————————————————————————————–
Power of the internet with multipule postings to push or pull people one way or the other or towards or against another. Two hundred working at NZSIS? thats alot of pressure, add supporters…And thats what alot of these postings are about.
LikeLike
Ten squeeze a sheeps belly, and a good chance blood comes out, pehaps water from its teeth (fluoridated or not), but were not talking about a sheep or blood here are we Ken from the NZSIS, and with the SS connected and combined from country to country across many regions and squeezing to obtain……under “guise” postings weather they be fluoride, or other guised postings you could almost control and racist a white man or pehaps…. gees thats a picture of Clint Griess? reminds me of some blokes seen in the UK, throw in a name every so often within the postings to achieve…well back to the sheep.
LikeLike
I had an Indian sit close to me on a train recently, or beacuse you say hello to someone on the street people may think that you accept them as a close friend with the visual power of the internet etc. Pushing Maori , Indians or any other race including white people you don’t know, No not for me Ken.
Steve P
UK
LikeLike
Nor do I want your security service arranged relatives or the kids they produce when partnered.
Steve P
UK
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pushing people towards others, immigration control, and accomodation denial regardless of SS wishes.
LikeLike
And using your own questioners to take away suspecion, certain police ?
When pushing
LikeLike
Question, what is the correct dosage for fluoride?
I mean, everyone has different dosages when it’s placed in the public water system, because we’re always drinking different and varied amounts, because people have different lifestyles, and drink more water than others.
For example, someone like myself, who plays a lot of cricket in the hot Australian summer, and drinks copious amounts of water will be getting more fluoride, than say my grandmother who sips a cup of tea every morning.
Am I overdosing, or is my grandmother underdosing?
LikeLike
My comments were polite, but no publication… why?
LikeLike
Peter, new commenters here always have to be approved – you are not being censored.
Regarding your comments od “dosage’ – the concept is just not relevant to nutrient intake. We talk of dose when referring to drugs but not when referring to nutrients. We don’t talk of dosage when discussing calcium, selenium, magnesium intake – do we.
What we refer to is recommended intake – and that has a wide range. We discuss the possibilities of too low an intake or too high an intake but we don’t aim for a narrow precise intake.
Neither you or you grandmother are “overdosing” on F if you are living in an area where community water fluoridation is used.
I think this concept was discussed in my debate with Connett. I recommend you read it – here is a pdf you can download – Connett & Perrott (2014). The Fluoride Debate.
LikeLike
Im posting again, because I’m not sure why my rebuttal didn’t show up on this thread.
Firstly, seeing as though you like to indulge in semantics, I didn’t accuse you of “censoring,” you were just failing to publish my comments, as we have found, for obviously reasons.
I did have a little laugh, at your attempted non-sequitur over this silly argument about semantics.
I spend time with my grandmother, so the word dosage is her terminology, not mine. However, whether it’s dosage or recommended intake, you know what I mean.
“…the concept is just not relevant to nutrient intake.”
Fluoride, is not a nutrient, it’s a chemical.
Let’s both of us refer to fluoride as a chemical, so there’s no hang up about semantics.
“Neither you or you grandmother are “overdosing”…
It seems you didn’t bother to read my post in its entirety, my concern is, was I getting too much, and my grandmother getting too little, in regards to the real-life example I gave you?
“I think this concept was discussed…”
You think?
Well that was wrong, because that link you provided was wholly inadequate.
It’s obvious to all objective observers, that this chemical seems to be totally arbitrary and ad hoc when it comes to intake… obviously, it’s a secondary consideration, because we drink water primarily for hydration.
We don’t see arbitrary intakes of say pharmaceutical drugs, when our doctors prescribe them for us.
So why isn’t this question addressed by the pro-fluoride crowd?
LikeLike
You say “Im posting again, because I’m not sure why my rebuttal didn’t show up on this thread.” I do not know what you mean. I saw your comment so it obviously shows up. What do you mean by “thread” – you are commenting on a page – not a post?
Of course, fluoride is a chemical – all nutrients are chemicals.
You say the link I provided “was wholly inadequate” – please describe in which way it was inadequate. Did you actually read the document – it’s quite long.
How can you justify your statement that fluoride “seems to be totally arbitrary and ad hoc when it comes to intake?” Do you say the same about Iodine or Selenium where the same situation applies – we consider intake not “dosage.” We don’t treat these nutrients as “pharmaceutical drugs, when our doctors prescribe them for us.”
I don’t know who you think “the pro-fluoride crowd” is but this sort of issue has been discussed here several times. And as a trained research scientist, I am an objective observer. It’s not an important aspect though. If you are not living in an area of endemic fluorosis and do not drink a lot of black tea or consume toothpaste, and you are living in a region where CWF is used neither you or your grandma are getting too much or too little F. Health authorities keep abreast of nutrient intakes and ongoing research and they would modify recommended procedures if that was the case.
LikeLike
My word, your desire for obfuscation by way of semantics is extraordinary.
Blog, page, thread and post, excetera excetera is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Your avoidance at answering a simple question is noted.
I had trouble posting my rebuttal, it took three attempts, that’s what I was referring to.
Yes, your link was wholly inadequate, because it’s not specific regarding my point, and that is, what is the daily recommended intake of fluoride… ingested fluoride via water consumption, not from other sources?
I doubt your claims of being a scientist, and I certainly doubt your claims of objectivity, because needless to say, that is a conflict of interest.
Judging oneself about ones objectivity is obviously problematic.
“Do you say the same about Iodine or Selenium where the same situation applies…”
Huh?
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you saying you can take as much, or as little iodine and selenium as you choose?
And needless to say, they are nutrients, where as fluoride is a chemical.
Quite frankly, this quote from that broader paragraph, is just a word salad of conflating contexts, and a total misrepresentation of what I said earlier.
“If you are not living in an area of endemic fluorosis and do not drink a lot of black tea or consume toothpaste, and you are living in a region where CWF is used neither you or your grandma are getting too much or too little F.”
That is a bizarre and ambiguous statement, firstly, what “area” do you consider to have endemic fluorosis?
As for the rest of that comment, can you substantiate it?
Put simply, and getting back to my main point, what is the recommended daily intake of fluoride through water consumption?
And this time, can you reply succinctly and directly?
Your attempts at disingenuous and specious claptrap is laughable.
LikeLike
Peter, there is a reason for moderation on this blog – it helps to filter out extreme nutters and is used by most blogs.
I welcomed you here by approving your comments so that they could be discussed. If you have a different contrarian agenda and simply indulge in name-calling I can easily remove approval. Such tactics really are of no help in reaching an understanding.
But to answer your specific points.
1: Your “doubts” are meaningless regarding my professional background. That is simply a matter of record available to anyone. Try checking out my publications on Google scholar, or look through my Researchgate collection.
2: No I am not “saying you can take as much, or as little iodine and selenium as you choose” – I thought that was clear. Like all nutrients, there are problems when the intake of chemicals like this is either too low or too high. Like fluoride, there are parts of China where selenium intake is too high leading to health problems and other parts where it is too low leading to health problems. In New Zealand, Selenium intake can be low because our soils are naturally deficient – but intake is helped by the import of wheat and other foods.
But we don’t talk of “dosage” when we discuss chemicals/nutrients like Selenium, Iodine or Fluoride – we talk of an acceptable range of intake. Minimum and maximum uptake levels. We do this with fluoride. For example, because in most cases fluoride in drinking water is the major source of F-intake the WHO defines a recommended drinking water fluoride concentration range of 0.5 – 1.5 mg/L. The helps overcome dental problems at deficient levels while avoiding dental and skeletal fluorosis problems and excessive intake levels. The WHO considers nutrient intake – not dosage in such cases. If you want the recommended total dietary intake levels I recommend you investigate the official health and scientific sources which discuss nutrient intake recommendations for specific information which usually depends on age and weight.
3: I repeat, Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals and nutrients. There is a serious problem with your comprehension if you do not understand that all nutrients, in fact, all substances, are chemicals. Surely that is a simple fact most people understand (although advertisers wish to confuse that understanding).
4: Endemic fluorosis areas are defined by the health symptoms shown by residents due to excessive fluoride intake. It is a big problem worldwide and there is a lot of attention paid to defluorination of drinking water or finding alternative sources for human consumption. There are no endemic fluorosis areas in New Zealand – the problem here is that most of New Zealand is naturally deficient in fluoride.
Finally, I welcome good-faith discussion on these scientific issues – but there is no place for the personal attack of the sort you have been making.
LikeLike
This is fascinating, and at the same time highly amusing!
I accuse you of obfuscation, disingenuous prolix and other off topic tangents, wrapped up in your semantics, and you prove me correct…
Now we can add the term hypocrisy.
“There is a serious problem with your comprehension…”
“Finally, I welcome good-faith discussion on these scientific issues – but there is no place for the personal attack of the sort you have been making.”
Let’s isolate this paragraph…
“I repeat, Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals and nutrients. There is a serious problem with your comprehension if you do not understand that all nutrients, in fact, all substances, are chemicals. Surely that is a simple fact most people understand (although advertisers wish to confuse that understanding).”
And I repeat, your games of semantics will not be tolerated in a rational debate.
I, rightly, separate Iodine and Selenium, because if you study evolutionary biology, those two nutrients have been important to our biological makeup… Fluoride?
Not so much.
That’s why I refer to it as a chemical, as opposed to a nutrient.
And then laughingly, you claim that advertisers try to confuse the understanding of nutrients and chemicals.
And ditto for the rest of your post, and out of fear of repeating myself, it’s irrelevant and off-topic prolix.
You wanting to steer this debate off-topic around Iodine and Selenium is evidence of that. You failed to answer a simple question, and stick specifically to the topic, which is the correct intake of fluoride.
The closest you got to answering my question was this…
“…WHO defines a recommended drinking water fluoride concentration range of 0.5 – 1.5 mg/L…”
Which brings me back to my original point, if I’m drinking up to 3 to 4 L of water per day in a hot Australian Summer playing cricket and other sports, am I getting too much fluoride?
Lastly, ResearchGate is considered the “Facebook” for anyone interested in science.
Anybody with an interest in science can get published on ResearchGate.
LikeLike
Peter, I am afraid you are not being genuine. Researchgate is, of course, a repository for one’s documents. I have placed my published papers there, as well as some documents in progress. Or documents like the Connett/Perrott Fluoride Debate which was, of course, not published in the normal sense but is still very useful. It gets a lot of downloads. I have published many papers in the normal scientific journals (some of them even on fluoride) and you can easily locate them (trying looking for the citations on Researchgate or do a simple search).
Please don’t try to pursue this attempt to denigrate me and my scientific career. That will only show your lack of good faith and will lead to my placing you back into moderation.
There is nothing laughable about the way advertiser use the term “chemical.” Ever looked at a packet of sea salt in the supermarket and see it claimed to be “chemical-free?”
So you continue your lack of comprehension – withdrawing the status of “chemical” from Iodine and Selenium because they involved in biochemical reactions. Of course, at this stage fluoride is not seen as essential to biochemical transformations but it is a normal and essential component of bioapatites – including bones and teeth. The fact remains that Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals – it is ignorant to claim otherwise. And they all play a role in the body.
As for your worry that you may be getting too much fluoride? Do you have any symptoms of skeletal fluorosis? (Dental fluorosis is not a problem for adults). If not, then you have the answer and you have absolutely no need to bother others with silly questions.
LikeLike
All I can say, is you are denigrating yourself, with your laughable and ridiculous word games, all designed to avoid the elephant in the room, and that is, your failure, along with the pro fluoride people to answer this problematic question.
And again, your ability to lump all chemicals together, is just quite laughable, where you cannot distinguish between good, bad and indifferent chemicals.
So according to you, light, whether it comes from the sun or my torch is the same.
Seeing as though, you so spectacularly failed to answer this simple question, perhaps you can read these other criticisms of fluoride, and try to rebut them. Instead of posting multiple links, I found them all in the one page.
https://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/
LikeLike
“The fact remains that Iodine, Selenium and Fluoride are chemicals… they all play a role in the body.”
Again, appalling nonsense from someone who purports to be a scientist.
Show me, where has fluoride, like Selenium and Iodine, helped create the organisms we are today, via evolutionary biology?
Put simply, what role has fluoride played in our development?
LikeLike
Peter, I am putting you back into moderation. This gives me a chance to check your comments before they are published. I will not allow any more comments where you personally attack me and use puerile claims that I “purport” to be a scientist. (I do not purport anything – that is simply a fact).
My serious comments dealing with your misunderstanding of chemistry are not “laughable and ridiculous word games.”
You seem completely unaware that I am, familiar with Connett’s 50 reasons – hell, this debate was specifically about them. I have countered his claims in the article which this page is dedicated to (you didn’t bother reading it did you?) and there are a large number of posts where I deal specifically with these claims and others – and with the research.
So, Peter, you are welcome to make serious and respectful comments here or on the main part of my blog where most commenters appear. But I will not allow any more personal attacks from you.
LikeLike
I already have that paper, Peter. Its citation is:
LikeLike
I was just looking at the fluoride therapy once tooth decay has occurred and one wished to arrest it by fluoridation using commercially available fluoride toothpaste: applying a blob of tooth paste to the affected teeth or all teeth and leaving it there for say 30 minutes twice a day. To the anti-fluoridation proponents, what dangers are you aware of, if any, in such a practice.
LikeLike
You will have to ask a dentist – but I have certainly heard of this and use of other fluoride treatments like silver fluoride to arrest decay and even avert demineralisation. my own dentist has recommended this to me rather than drilling and reconstruction.
LikeLike