Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 12, 2012
City Fluoride Fight! Should Portland Treat Its Drinking Water or What?
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM
- Gladskikh Tatiana / Shutterstock
- Mmmmmmmmm.... Fluoride!
Maybe you've heard, but Portland is "the largest city in the U.S. that has yet to approve fluoridation to combat tooth decay."
This could change today, as the Portland city council seems poised to approve fluoride in the city's water, despite a raging civic debate the AP outlines thusly:
The issue presents a clash between two progressive positions: the desire to improve the dental health of low-income children and the impulse to avoid putting anything unnecessary in the air, food or water.
Also: "Barnyard animals are force medicated, not human beings," said Mike Smith, a member of the Occupy Portland movement, speaking to the AP.
Aaaaalso: "I don't appreciate you trying to alleviate your white guilt by putting toxins in our water," said anti-fluoride activist Angel Lambart, according to the Portland Mercury.
And finally: "Every respected scientific committee or health organization that has reviewed the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation has concluded that fluoridation is a healthy and effective public health practice," says Portland Mayor Sam Adams. "Onward."
Not so fast, Sam! The council hasn't voted yet, and neither has Slog. So: Hear ye! Hear ye! A legally binding, scientifically proven, tooth-decay-fighting Slog poll now commences:
1
Hrm, browsing her FB, of COURSE she's a homeschooler/"unschooler". You don't get to be that dumb without wanting to force others down that route.
2
Anti-fluoride sounds like one step away from the anti-vaxxer loony bin, which has its own share of liberals. The left shouldn't start denying science as well.
3
When I go to the dentist, they say they are impressed and ask if I come from where I come from because we had flouridated water and they can tell. Everytime I go, they guess right. It is good for your teeth and therefore good for your alimentary.
4
The problem with flouride is that while it is effective when applied topically, ingesting it isn't great for you. If only there were some way to get flouride applied topically without also having it ingested...
5
Fluoridated water doesn't do anything for your teeth after you swallow it right? Isn't it only a topical treatment?
Harvard came out with this paper earlier this year based on data gather in China:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/feature…
Harvard came out with this paper earlier this year based on data gather in China:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/feature…
6
Portland's Precious Bodily Fluids lost their essence decades ago, so they might as well go for it. If nothing else, it makes for wonderful theatre.
And I'm so glad to see Occupy is boldly leading the charge on this. What an effective movement!
And I'm so glad to see Occupy is boldly leading the charge on this. What an effective movement!
8
I come from a small town in fucking backwardville Montana and THOSE cowhicks have floridated water. Seriously, part of the "anti-science" crowd. And my dentist here in Seattle is always impressed with how good of condition my teeth are in.
NOT floridating your local water supply is simply abuse to your community and abuses your children. Pure and simple.
NOT floridating your local water supply is simply abuse to your community and abuses your children. Pure and simple.
10
What how many parts per million would be considered a medical intervention? 2012 Portland water quality report states that natural fluoride levels range from less than 0.025 parts per million up to 0.16 parts per million.
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/arti…
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/arti…
11
4
5
The fluoride in drinking water is intended to be metabolized by children and incorporated into the structure of their teeth as the teeth develop.
There is not enough fluoride in drinking water to have a topical effect.
Fluoride rinses have a higher concentration and have topical benefit but should be spit out and not swallowed.
5
The fluoride in drinking water is intended to be metabolized by children and incorporated into the structure of their teeth as the teeth develop.
There is not enough fluoride in drinking water to have a topical effect.
Fluoride rinses have a higher concentration and have topical benefit but should be spit out and not swallowed.
12
Weird...I live in a city nicknamed "cow town" and they recently took flouride out of the water last year. We're evolving a lot in regards to arts, culture and the environment but still rather conservative/religious/big business (oil) oriented.
Should I be surprised because being oppposed to flouride is supposed to be a big money, ignorant, anti-science kind of thing? Or because it's a pro-environment, progressive, pro-health "hippy" kind of thing?
I'm confused.
Should I be surprised because being oppposed to flouride is supposed to be a big money, ignorant, anti-science kind of thing? Or because it's a pro-environment, progressive, pro-health "hippy" kind of thing?
I'm confused.
14
"Decades of research by medical and chemical professionals? Fuck that noise, I have a feeling it is bad!"
17
Because it is absurd to think Occupy Portland would actually weigh in on this, anti-fluoridation Occupiers are probably really just agents provocateurs planted by Portland's nefarious dental industry, whose members fear losing their annual cavity-filling revenue.
18
@internet_jen between 1 and 3 ppm is the optimal dose. Any more and the negative effects of fluorosis start to accrue (strong, but discolored teeth). Any less and children's teeth rot. Flouridation is the process of regulating this level of flouride in the water so it stays in this healthy goldilocks zone. And yes, flouride ingestion will incorporate flouride into your teeth, especially important for developing children.
19
I love using the tap water in my home town. It's pretty good unlike other places. I'd rather drink tap water with a little fluoride than cans of sugar/acid soda everyday.
20
These idiots make the anti-vaxxers look informed.
@18 Exactly. Its amazing how many people don't know that fluoride occurs naturally in many water sources.
@18 Exactly. Its amazing how many people don't know that fluoride occurs naturally in many water sources.
21
@ 12, if you're talking about Denver, I don't think that's correct. (I'd also dispute the notion of Denver being religious-oriented or conservative. We're not SF, but we're also not Dallas.)
23
Isn't this the same city that drained and refilled their entire reservoir because a drunk guy peed a tiny amount into it? There is something in the water in Portland, and it isn't fluoride.
24
Now I know why I always feel like I'm in the UK when I'm in Portland. Lots of rain and shitty teeth.
25
Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
26
@ 11 / 18 -- okay, the mechanism section of the wikipedia article on water fluoridation makes it seem like it is a reactive response to existing tooth decay:
As opposed to a pro-active building strong teeth from the bottom up strategy. It doesn't really mention how fluoride helps after it is absorbed into the bones, it just says it is stored in bones/teeth. But maybe that would be found in a more general Fluroide article.
"All fluoridation methods, including water fluoridation, create low levels of fluoride ions in saliva and plaque fluid, thus exerting a topical or surface effect. A person living in an area with fluoridated water may experience rises of fluoride concentration in saliva to about 0.04 mg/L several times during a day.[3] Technically, this fluoride does not prevent cavities but rather controls the rate at which they develop.[43]
As opposed to a pro-active building strong teeth from the bottom up strategy. It doesn't really mention how fluoride helps after it is absorbed into the bones, it just says it is stored in bones/teeth. But maybe that would be found in a more general Fluroide article.
27
Portland has some of best water in the nation.
As I've reported, my own water supply is horrible. My latest effort to create potability has been the installation of GE RO device...which makes it acceptable.
However, at one point, when I regularly visiting my college buddy down there for poker games and other hijinks, I used to take my two 5 gallon plastic camping jugs to fill and bring back.
"Glacial" should only be used to describe the fantastic taste of one municipality's water. Portland, Oregon.
But, I guess at some point They would have to mess it up.
The way they messed up Seattle.
As I've reported, my own water supply is horrible. My latest effort to create potability has been the installation of GE RO device...which makes it acceptable.
However, at one point, when I regularly visiting my college buddy down there for poker games and other hijinks, I used to take my two 5 gallon plastic camping jugs to fill and bring back.
"Glacial" should only be used to describe the fantastic taste of one municipality's water. Portland, Oregon.
But, I guess at some point They would have to mess it up.
The way they messed up Seattle.
28
I am SHOCKED no one brought up this oldie but a goodie on floridation. "It's a plot by the commies to take over America!!"
There, now we have completion on this thread.
There, now we have completion on this thread.
29
I'm reminded of a scene in "Watchmen," where the guys at the 80s version of WND are going through the mail (including Rorschach's letter, which is skipped over) for leads, but throwing it all into the "crank file". One letter that was opened (and led to the impatient chucking of everything into the crank file) was something about fluoride turning everyone into homos.
31
@27 go to Bellingham, dummy. They don't have fluoridated water either, and I guarantee it's far more "glacial" than Portland's. Haha. Glacial. That's funny.
32
My 2 1/2 year old son just had to have 8 fillings, a root canal, and 4 caps (plus the general anasthesia in a hospital that goes along with doing that to a toddler). We brushed his teeth and everything - dentist said we did everything right, but his first two years of life was in a city that doesn't fluoridate the water. We don't even give him sugar or juice. And now we're in ANOTHER city that doesn't fluoridate the water, so we have the fun, fun task of getting him to take supplements.
So, that puts Portland on par with Algiers and Moscow.
So, that puts Portland on par with Algiers and Moscow.
35
It's good for teeth... topically. A quick Google brings up studies that show ingesting it lowers IQ and can cause brain damage in children, as it can cross the blood-brain barrier and screw with your nervous system, hormones, and all sorts of other good stuff.
I personally don't think the benefits outweigh the side effects, I'll have fluoride in my tea and toothpaste only, thanks.
I personally don't think the benefits outweigh the side effects, I'll have fluoride in my tea and toothpaste only, thanks.
36
Clearly, most people in this thread have not educated themselves on this topic. Have you ever wondered why it is that we fluoridate our water to promote health, but don't do anything else to our water to promote health? Why, for example, don't we add vitamin D to our water here in the NW when most of us are vitamin D deficient and study after study has shown how important vitamin D is to our health? The truth is, we have been fed the same information so long, we believe it and no longer question it. In fact, we question those who question it. Like most things you put in your body, too much can be a very bad thing. Unfortunately, fluoride is toxic and the amount that is safe is turning out to be far less than we have been led to believe. The history of our fluoridation process is bizarre, beginning with the Manhattan Project (seriously). All I ask is that you look into it. This is your health and your family's health we are talking about. Isn't it worth more than a 2 minute talk with your dentist, who may or may not have read the recent relevant studies? To get you started:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/2…
http://www.naturalnews.com/029630_fluori…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/2…
http://www.naturalnews.com/029630_fluori…
37
Clearly, most people in this thread have not educated themselves on this topic. Have you ever wondered why it is that we fluoridate our water to promote health, but don't do anything else to our water to promote health? Why, for example, don't we add vitamin D to our water here in the NW when most of us are vitamin D deficient and study after study has shown how important vitamin D is to our health? The truth is, we have been fed the same information so long, we believe it and no longer question it. In fact, we question those who question it. Like most things you put in your body, too much can be a very bad thing. Unfortunately, fluoride is toxic and the amount that is safe is turning out to be far less than we have been led to believe. All I ask is that you look into it. This is your health and your family's health we are talking about. Isn't it worth more than a 2 minute talk with your dentist, who may or may not have read the recent relevant studies. To help you along:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/2…
http://www.naturalnews.com/029630_fluori…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/2…
http://www.naturalnews.com/029630_fluori…
39
@32: Stories like yours are what have been making me goggle at the insanity of the anti-fluoride brigade down here. I keep reading rants that "if parents would just stop feeding their kids sugar and brush their damn kids' teeth, unfluoridated water wouldn't be an issue," as if kids brushing with fudge and rinsing orange soda were the problem rather than kids like yours, whose parents have done everything right, suffering for Portland's refusal to take advantage of one of the great public health victories of the 20th century.
42
@36/37 - Also, I'd avoid citing Huffington Post around here in discussions of science. They're hardly a respected source. Natural News, though, they're right up there with all the major medical journals.
44
@38 - I'm not trying to insult anybody here. I once thought like most that fluoridation of our drinking water was a good thing. After reading enough about it, I'm saddened. BTW, you can't buy a Brita filter and make it go away. It requires an entirely more involved filtration process.
45
Most of you people are complete idiots. Because you're more concerned about the fashion of fluoridation, is it "hippie?" is it "anti-science?" rather than anything empirical.
Listen, if you want clean teeth, why not just eat your toothpaste? It makes as much sense as putting fluoride in your water.
Listen, if you want clean teeth, why not just eat your toothpaste? It makes as much sense as putting fluoride in your water.
48
@37 Natural News is one of the most toxic anti-science websites on the face of the earth. Same thing with "Dr." Mercola. They dazzle their readers with sciency-sounding fancy talk but they are just making shit up.
It is true that high levels of fluoride can cause health problems, but at the concentrations used in public water systems you would die from water intoxication long before you ingested enough fluoride to cause you harm.
It is true that high levels of fluoride can cause health problems, but at the concentrations used in public water systems you would die from water intoxication long before you ingested enough fluoride to cause you harm.
49
@21 Nah, Calgary... I lived on Vancouver Island for 5 years and came back to discover they had decided to stop adding fluoride to the water. I was surprised but haven't looked into it much (pro/con). I wasn't born here but I grew up in a city that utilized fluoridation and my teeth have always been great...even the ones in the extra mouth on my shoulder...
50
@39,
And if parents don't do everything right, what then? Their kids get punished with bad teeth? What about the many children in this country who never get to see a dentist? Fluoridation helps them more than anyone.
And if parents don't do everything right, what then? Their kids get punished with bad teeth? What about the many children in this country who never get to see a dentist? Fluoridation helps them more than anyone.
51
50
actually @50 is 100% right.
the children who have the least going for them benefit the most, and suffer the most if water is not treated.
actually @50 is 100% right.
the children who have the least going for them benefit the most, and suffer the most if water is not treated.
52
@48 I don't disagree with that, but the problem is our bodies can't get rid of it fast enough. We can eliminate about 60% of it at best. The rest gets stored up in our systems. There are studies that have shown ingested fluoride collects around our pineal gland, which is a master hormone gland. Some believe that is contributing to a host of modern diseases that we don't currently understand. And there is no question that higher doses of fluoride is toxic (actually, any dose is toxic, but the negative effects may be minimal), so the collection in the body becomes the real concern here. And we're not just talking about the water we drink, we are also talking about the fact that water is used throughout our food supply.
My thought is, if folks want to add fluoride to their diet, fine. It's cheap and could be made available in a host of ways for those that choose it. For those of us that prefer not to ingest it, we shouldn't be forced to.
My thought is, if folks want to add fluoride to their diet, fine. It's cheap and could be made available in a host of ways for those that choose it. For those of us that prefer not to ingest it, we shouldn't be forced to.
54
This comment thread is full of choice nuggets. I commend you all, especially the anti-fluoride people who are giving everyone else a chance to be so awesome!
I asked my dentist about this a few years ago and she said that fluoride in the water is more for children who are developing their adult teeth. It has small benefits for adults, but it's the primary reason that she tells parents to make their children drink tap water.
I asked my dentist about this a few years ago and she said that fluoride in the water is more for children who are developing their adult teeth. It has small benefits for adults, but it's the primary reason that she tells parents to make their children drink tap water.
55
Will@41:
Save the cost of a fence and just leave them on Vashon.
I vote we ship all the anti-vaccine anti-flouride people to Tacoma and put a fence around them.
Save the cost of a fence and just leave them on Vashon.
57
If single digit number of studies contradict the scientific consensus of hundreds of other scientific studies it's pretty safe to consider the dissenters to be outliers and believe that the majority is getting the science right.
In other words, if you asked 100 of your friends what the best Mexican restaurant in Seattle is and five of them told you 'Taco Bell' you would probably and rightfully ignore their opinions.
In other words, if you asked 100 of your friends what the best Mexican restaurant in Seattle is and five of them told you 'Taco Bell' you would probably and rightfully ignore their opinions.
58
@57 You are making an assumption that there have been hundreds of scientific studies verifying the benefits. Most "studies" site the same historical material. Most recent independent studies are finding health problems.
If you think about it, though, that makes sense. Consider those annoying pharmaceutical commercials that suggest you ask your doctor about some drug or another and then proceeds to list off a laundry list of possible side effects. The drug offers benefits, sure, but at a cost. Fluoridation of or water is similar. There are some benefits, but at a cost. That cost is greater for some than others, just like pharmaceuticals. And that is why the consumption of fluoride should be voluntary. This isn't unreasonable.
If you think about it, though, that makes sense. Consider those annoying pharmaceutical commercials that suggest you ask your doctor about some drug or another and then proceeds to list off a laundry list of possible side effects. The drug offers benefits, sure, but at a cost. Fluoridation of or water is similar. There are some benefits, but at a cost. That cost is greater for some than others, just like pharmaceuticals. And that is why the consumption of fluoride should be voluntary. This isn't unreasonable.
63
My friend used to work for the washington toxics coalition and researched this. Check their site, but I recall her saying the health benefits of injesting it orally are dubious, and the push to put it in the water comes because it's some kind of industrial waste product.
65
@17 - Thank you.
Also bonus point for the Mercury commenter for finding a new way to misuse the word "toxins."
Also bonus point for the Mercury commenter for finding a new way to misuse the word "toxins."
66
@50: I don't believe I said any of the words you just put in my mouth. I was merely comparing one of the most common anti-fluoride arguments I've read--nix the sugar, brush your teeth, and all will be well--with the reality illustrated by 38's comment--that taking those exact steps isn't always enough. Of course water fluoridation helps kids whose families can't afford proper dental care: that's one of the reasons fluoridation is one of the great public health victories of the 20th century. But I didn't think it was necessary to itemize all of the advantages of water fluoridation when ridiculing a single absurd anti-fluoride argument. Thank you for the valuable lesson in...whatever the hell point you thought you were making.
67
@ 60/61/62 - I never paid any attention to fluoride, but when I heard the conspiracy theorists were able to point to a negative study by a bonafide institution I finally read the wiki article on it. Here is a study from Harvard, though based on data from China, though I personally would take any data from China with a grain of salt:
(Harvard press release type write up)
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/feature…
(pup-med)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820…
(Harvard press release type write up)
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/feature…
(pup-med)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820…
69
@ several: I don't have time to do a bunch of research for you right now; I'm at work. In the interest of expediency, here is a good source that references other sources. This site is anti-fluoride, but the articles on each health concern mention references so you can check out the sources for yourselves.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/heal…
It is probably worth re-emphasizing that the affects on one individual, or even most individuals, will not apply to everyone. Fluoride is tricky stuff, and I fear most people don't realize how much so.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/heal…
It is probably worth re-emphasizing that the affects on one individual, or even most individuals, will not apply to everyone. Fluoride is tricky stuff, and I fear most people don't realize how much so.
70
"I don't appreciate you trying to alleviate your white guilt by putting toxins in our water"
Yet another idiot who is more concerned with maintaining a "more radical than thou" image than with actually implementing effective solutions to problems.
It's one thing to be ignorant of studies showing fluoride to be effective and harmless in small doses, or even to be confused about which "scientific" studies are peer-reviewed and therefore more trustworthy.
It's quite another thing to pull an oddly specific, nefarious motive out of thin air and assign it to your 'opponent,' and then use that as the basis of your opinion on fluoride.
Same thing with whichever commenter decided to go with the scare tactic that fluoridation was conceived of as part of "The Manhattan Project." Look, fluoridation is either harmful or not. If it's harmful, then scientific studies (from more than just one or two shady, politically-motivated "studies") will show that. If it isn't, then it won't be magically made harmful by being associated with a sinister-sounding military project.
Either way, any association (real or imagined) with the Manhattan Project is irrelevant, and only someone who possesses no real evidence for their claim would have to even bring it up.
Yet another idiot who is more concerned with maintaining a "more radical than thou" image than with actually implementing effective solutions to problems.
It's one thing to be ignorant of studies showing fluoride to be effective and harmless in small doses, or even to be confused about which "scientific" studies are peer-reviewed and therefore more trustworthy.
It's quite another thing to pull an oddly specific, nefarious motive out of thin air and assign it to your 'opponent,' and then use that as the basis of your opinion on fluoride.
Same thing with whichever commenter decided to go with the scare tactic that fluoridation was conceived of as part of "The Manhattan Project." Look, fluoridation is either harmful or not. If it's harmful, then scientific studies (from more than just one or two shady, politically-motivated "studies") will show that. If it isn't, then it won't be magically made harmful by being associated with a sinister-sounding military project.
Either way, any association (real or imagined) with the Manhattan Project is irrelevant, and only someone who possesses no real evidence for their claim would have to even bring it up.
71
@27 - Your water must come from a different aquifer than mine. I live in West Seattle, and I can't distinguish my tap water from bottled water. Delicious, no Brita required.
72
This is an interesting read on the issue...
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.…
"In a report authored by Perry D. Cohn, Ph.D., M.P.H., for the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New
Jersey Department of Health, the rates of bone cancer in fluoridated
and nonfluoridated areas were compared. Both by counties or by
municipalities, males under the age of 50 had 3 to 7 times as many
bone cancers in the fluoridated areas. Males 10-19 years old fared
the worst. An external review panel found no serious flaws with
the study.
Cancer rates in the ten largest fluoridated cities in the United
States and in the ten largest nonfluoridated cities were found to be
the same before fluoridation began. After 20 years, the ten
fluoridated cities had 10% more cancer deaths than the
nonfluoridated cities. The cancers were found in the tongue, mouth,
pharynx, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, larynx,
bronchi, and lungs.
Hip fractures in two cities in Utah were compared: fluoridated
Brigham City and nonfluoridated Cedar City. In the fluoridated (1
ppm) city, the hip fracture rate was twice as high as in the
nonfluoridated city, in women around age 75. Men aged 80-85 also
had twice the hip fracture rate in fluoridated Brigham City. The
insidious nature of fluoride toxicity is that it does not cause bone
density loss as found in osteoporosis by bone scans, but causes an
increase in bone density with no clinical benefit. Fluoride makes
both bones and teeth more brittle. Early reports of supposed
benefits of fluoridation to bone were quoted without citing later
corrections or retractions."
...
"Excess fluoride may also have detrimental neurologic effects.
Rats given sodium fluoride in their drinking water at a concentration
producing a plasma level of fluoride equivalent to that found in
humans consuming water with 4 ppm of fluoride developed
symptoms resembling attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.
Gerard F. Judd, Ph.D., lists 113 ailments reportedly caused by
fluoride, all with literature citations to studies, of which 13 were
double-blinded. So far, there are no known naturally occurring
compounds of fluorine in the human body. Fluorine is not listed as
even a trace element in whole body assays, showing that there is
no requirement for it at all."
More...
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.…
"In a report authored by Perry D. Cohn, Ph.D., M.P.H., for the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New
Jersey Department of Health, the rates of bone cancer in fluoridated
and nonfluoridated areas were compared. Both by counties or by
municipalities, males under the age of 50 had 3 to 7 times as many
bone cancers in the fluoridated areas. Males 10-19 years old fared
the worst. An external review panel found no serious flaws with
the study.
Cancer rates in the ten largest fluoridated cities in the United
States and in the ten largest nonfluoridated cities were found to be
the same before fluoridation began. After 20 years, the ten
fluoridated cities had 10% more cancer deaths than the
nonfluoridated cities. The cancers were found in the tongue, mouth,
pharynx, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, larynx,
bronchi, and lungs.
Hip fractures in two cities in Utah were compared: fluoridated
Brigham City and nonfluoridated Cedar City. In the fluoridated (1
ppm) city, the hip fracture rate was twice as high as in the
nonfluoridated city, in women around age 75. Men aged 80-85 also
had twice the hip fracture rate in fluoridated Brigham City. The
insidious nature of fluoride toxicity is that it does not cause bone
density loss as found in osteoporosis by bone scans, but causes an
increase in bone density with no clinical benefit. Fluoride makes
both bones and teeth more brittle. Early reports of supposed
benefits of fluoridation to bone were quoted without citing later
corrections or retractions."
...
"Excess fluoride may also have detrimental neurologic effects.
Rats given sodium fluoride in their drinking water at a concentration
producing a plasma level of fluoride equivalent to that found in
humans consuming water with 4 ppm of fluoride developed
symptoms resembling attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.
Gerard F. Judd, Ph.D., lists 113 ailments reportedly caused by
fluoride, all with literature citations to studies, of which 13 were
double-blinded. So far, there are no known naturally occurring
compounds of fluorine in the human body. Fluorine is not listed as
even a trace element in whole body assays, showing that there is
no requirement for it at all."
73
@67 Conclusions: 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.
The problem with that study isn't that it took place in China, but that it doesn't look at individual exposures. It's at the ecological level, meaning they examined the average IQ in "high fluoride areas" and "low fluoride areas" and found an association between high fluoride areas and lower IQ. This is at best suggestive of an association but is by no means conclusive.
The problem with that study isn't that it took place in China, but that it doesn't look at individual exposures. It's at the ecological level, meaning they examined the average IQ in "high fluoride areas" and "low fluoride areas" and found an association between high fluoride areas and lower IQ. This is at best suggestive of an association but is by no means conclusive.
74
@70: I thought I posted this, but maybe not - Disregard the Manhattan Project reference if that bothers you, but please don't disregard the very real research into the harmful affects of fluoridation. If, on the other hand, you are curious about that reference, here is a link to an interview with a researcher into that topic:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/th…
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/th…
75
OF COURSE FLUORIDE IS GOOD FOR YOU!
How do you know?
BECAUSE EV-ER-Y-BUDD-Y KNOWS THAT!
And how does everyone know that?
BECAUSE SCIENCE! DUHHHHH!!
Hmm. Well, let's take a look at that science, shall we?
In a study published just a couple months ago of the effects of fluoride on developing children (referenced above by internet_jen and others), Harvard researchers found the following:
Wichita, Kansas is facing a similar decision as Portland, and the Wichita Eagle just ran an article seemingly attempting to spin the Harvard study is irrelevant, but included this statement from the authors of the study:
Scientific American explored the questions of fluordization in a 2007 article. Here is their summary of the article (which seems to be behind a paywall):
The full article may or may not be contained in a pdf file that can be found at the second Google result for the search ["scientific american" "second thoughts on fluoride"]. The article may or may not include the following passage:
The UK newspaper The Guardian looked for a scientific consensus on fluordizing water and found none in a 2008 article:
More...
How do you know?
BECAUSE EV-ER-Y-BUDD-Y KNOWS THAT!
And how does everyone know that?
BECAUSE SCIENCE! DUHHHHH!!
Hmm. Well, let's take a look at that science, shall we?
In a study published just a couple months ago of the effects of fluoride on developing children (referenced above by internet_jen and others), Harvard researchers found the following:
For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain. Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.
[...]
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean 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.”
Wichita, Kansas is facing a similar decision as Portland, and the Wichita Eagle just ran an article seemingly attempting to spin the Harvard study is irrelevant, but included this statement from the authors of the study:
“These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,” the researchers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Eagle. “On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present."
Scientific American explored the questions of fluordization in a 2007 article. Here is their summary of the article (which seems to be behind a paywall):
Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults.
The full article may or may not be contained in a pdf file that can be found at the second Google result for the search ["scientific american" "second thoughts on fluoride"]. The article may or may not include the following passage:
The report is, however, prompting some researchers to wonder whether even 1 mg/L is too much in drinking water, in light of the growing recognition that food, beverages and dental products are also major sources of fluoride, especially for young children. The NRC committee did not formally address the question, but its analyses suggest that lower water fluoridation levels may pose risks, too. “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”
The UK newspaper The Guardian looked for a scientific consensus on fluordizing water and found none in a 2008 article:
The reality is that anyone making any confident statement on fluoride speaks way beyond the evidence. In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at York University to do a systematic review of fluoridation and its effects on dental health. Little new work has been done since. In the review, 3,200 research papers, mostly of very poor quality, were unearthed. The ones that met the minimum quality threshold suggested there was vaguely, possibly, around a 15% increase in the number of children without dental caries in areas with fluoridated water, but the studies generally couldn't exclude other explanations for the variance. Of course, the big idea with fluoride in water is that it can reduce social inequalities in dental health since everyone drinks it. But there isn't much evidence on that either.
So when the British Dental Association says there is "overwhelming evidence" that adding fluoride to water helps fight tooth decay, it is in danger of stepping into line with Ripper. And when Johnson says fluoridation is an effective, relatively easy way to help address health inequalities, he is really just pushing an old-fashioned line which says complex social problems can be addressed with £50m worth of atoms.
76
Science isn't so fun when it doesn't support your ridicule of others, is it?
All you band wagoneers might make an attempt to inform yourselves of the subject before rushing to shout down those advising some measure of prudence.
All you band wagoneers might make an attempt to inform yourselves of the subject before rushing to shout down those advising some measure of prudence.
78
@75, even comedy site Cracked.com debunked that "Harvard Study" nonsense, you lunatic. The levels of fluoride in question were from industrial pollution and were many times higher than the EPA's recommended safe dosage. Hell, you even posted a quote from one of the Harvard researchers, where he said, and I quote: "These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S."
Drinking too much water will kill you. All by itself. That doesn't mean it's unsafe to put fucking water in the fucking water supply.
And a few pandering pieces of alarmist journalism about perfectly reasonable revisitations of the question of fluoridation do not, as much as they would like you to think they do so you click through, indicate that there is no longer a strong scientific consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.
Seriously, though, in the time it took you to make three ranting posts, you could have casually googled up some reviews of that "Harvard study" and learned a thing or two. But you didn't. It's more fun to assume you're the smartest guy around, isn't it? After all, all the rest of us didn't make an attempt to inform ourselves. You're pretty sure of that. Right? It's the only possible reason we don't already agree with you.
Seriously, though, you know how profoundly narcissistic that attitude is?
Drinking too much water will kill you. All by itself. That doesn't mean it's unsafe to put fucking water in the fucking water supply.
And a few pandering pieces of alarmist journalism about perfectly reasonable revisitations of the question of fluoridation do not, as much as they would like you to think they do so you click through, indicate that there is no longer a strong scientific consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.
Seriously, though, in the time it took you to make three ranting posts, you could have casually googled up some reviews of that "Harvard study" and learned a thing or two. But you didn't. It's more fun to assume you're the smartest guy around, isn't it? After all, all the rest of us didn't make an attempt to inform ourselves. You're pretty sure of that. Right? It's the only possible reason we don't already agree with you.
Seriously, though, you know how profoundly narcissistic that attitude is?
79
Oh, did a comedy site "debunk" a study by Harvard research scientists and published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives?
Oh do tell me more!
Do your comedy sites also "debunk" preeminent publications like Scientific American and The Guardian??
You gotta be fucking kidding me, guy.
The whole point of my posts, and what these studies indicate, IS THAT THE VERDICT IS NOT IN ON THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF FLUORIDATING PUBLIC WATER.
So you have no basis to claim "it is definitely safe" and "it is definitely effective" and "people who have qualms about fluoridating public water are wackos".
Do you get that, asshat?
Oh do tell me more!
Do your comedy sites also "debunk" preeminent publications like Scientific American and The Guardian??
You gotta be fucking kidding me, guy.
The whole point of my posts, and what these studies indicate, IS THAT THE VERDICT IS NOT IN ON THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF FLUORIDATING PUBLIC WATER.
So you have no basis to claim "it is definitely safe" and "it is definitely effective" and "people who have qualms about fluoridating public water are wackos".
Do you get that, asshat?
80
"Hell, you even posted a quote from one of the Harvard researchers, where he said, and I quote: "These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.""
No, you half-quoted.
This is what I posted (emphasis mine... again):
What are you having difficulty with here?
No, you half-quoted.
This is what I posted (emphasis mine... again):
“These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,” the researchers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Eagle. “On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present."
What are you having difficulty with here?
81
@78 ego stuff aside, keep in mind that fluoride collects in our bodies. The level of fluoride you get in a glass a water is negligent. It is the collected levels that become harmful, and that is why the Harvard study has meaning.
83
@79, did you notice how you're making up quotes, and then arguing with them? I don't even know why I bothered butting into your private conversation. It's pretty clear there is one and only one voice that matters to you. That comedy site, since you apparently did not grasp the point, was an illustration of the fact that people who are distinctly non-expert were still able to discern the fatal problems with applying the Harvard results to domestic water fluoridation, something which you seem to be having trouble understanding. I thought perhaps simple language and pictures would help. They did not.
@81, there does not seem to be a significant weight of evidence showing that fluoride bioaccumulates except in a limited capacity which is not linked to consumption levels or water fluoridation. Most claims of bioaccumulation are made by anti-fluoridation groups and can be traced back to a study which examined the pineal glands of deceased individuals. In those cases, the level of accumulated fluoride was directly proportional to the level of accumulated calcium in the glands and seems to have been a result of calcification over the course of normal aging, rather than a result of any variation in fluoride intake. You'll have to forgive me if I'm missing something important, of course; this understanding is the result of a quick bit of journal searching, and I make no claims of being an expert. Still, as far as I can tell, there's no real support in the scientific consensus for fluoride accumulation in any biologically meaningful way.
@81, there does not seem to be a significant weight of evidence showing that fluoride bioaccumulates except in a limited capacity which is not linked to consumption levels or water fluoridation. Most claims of bioaccumulation are made by anti-fluoridation groups and can be traced back to a study which examined the pineal glands of deceased individuals. In those cases, the level of accumulated fluoride was directly proportional to the level of accumulated calcium in the glands and seems to have been a result of calcification over the course of normal aging, rather than a result of any variation in fluoride intake. You'll have to forgive me if I'm missing something important, of course; this understanding is the result of a quick bit of journal searching, and I make no claims of being an expert. Still, as far as I can tell, there's no real support in the scientific consensus for fluoride accumulation in any biologically meaningful way.
84
@80, I suppose you can be forgiven for not knowing the language of science, because it's pretty clear you don't have much of an education in it, but when a scientist - a good one, at any rate - says that something can't be ruled out, what that means is that in his professional estimation it is unlikely, but his current data do not bear on the question. A scientist does not say "No" if he doesn't have direct, explicit experimental evidence of whatever he's denying, and even then it's qualified. The statement you're quoting at me is essentially an ass-covering professional hedge that contains no real content whatsoever. Carry on being afraid of every uncertainty if it makes you happy, though. It "cannot be concluded that no risk is present" from you using a computer to post here on Slog - we can't completely rule out the remote possibility that wi-fi is increasing cancer rates, for example - but I notice you're doing it anyway.
85
I am in favor of fluoride in the water. Without it, the gay population would be cut in half in 20 years.
86
@84
Dear, sweet, insane Balderdash,
In the world of science, the accepted process for establishing the validity of a scientific study is to submit the study to a journal where it is reviewed by the authors' scientific peers -- that is, fellow experts in the same field of research.
This process is known as "peer review".
The authors of the Harvard meta-analysis submitted their findings to the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which indeed found it worthy of publication.
Cracked.com, it turns out, is not one such journal of peer review. The danger of accepting the assessment of nonexperts -- such as yourself, or the right honorable panel of Cracked.com investigators -- is the potential for the discussion to be contaminated with errors, fallacies, and misinformation, a function which you have performed effectively here.
But the real scandal here is that you are trying to pass yourself off as an objective commentator, when it is clear -- based on the bizarre, seething rage you've exhibited toward those who advocate a more restrained approach to the question of fluoridation of the public water supply -- that you have some vested interest in the continuation of the practice.
So which is it, Mr. Balderdash? Are you a dentist, dental student, or have close family in the profession? Or are you simply so terrified of the notion that (gasp!) not everything your government tells you is true that you would enthusiastically advocate the continued jeopardization of public health, simply to protect your cozy faith in the establishment?
(Not that we can expect a lick of honesty from someone as deeply zealous as yourself.)
More...
Dear, sweet, insane Balderdash,
In the world of science, the accepted process for establishing the validity of a scientific study is to submit the study to a journal where it is reviewed by the authors' scientific peers -- that is, fellow experts in the same field of research.
This process is known as "peer review".
Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
The authors of the Harvard meta-analysis submitted their findings to the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which indeed found it worthy of publication.
Cracked.com, it turns out, is not one such journal of peer review. The danger of accepting the assessment of nonexperts -- such as yourself, or the right honorable panel of Cracked.com investigators -- is the potential for the discussion to be contaminated with errors, fallacies, and misinformation, a function which you have performed effectively here.
But the real scandal here is that you are trying to pass yourself off as an objective commentator, when it is clear -- based on the bizarre, seething rage you've exhibited toward those who advocate a more restrained approach to the question of fluoridation of the public water supply -- that you have some vested interest in the continuation of the practice.
So which is it, Mr. Balderdash? Are you a dentist, dental student, or have close family in the profession? Or are you simply so terrified of the notion that (gasp!) not everything your government tells you is true that you would enthusiastically advocate the continued jeopardization of public health, simply to protect your cozy faith in the establishment?
(Not that we can expect a lick of honesty from someone as deeply zealous as yourself.)
87
Also @84:
When a scientist - a good one, at any rate - says that something can't be ruled out, I think they mean exactly what they say, rather than some more convenient interpretation some internet troll would like to impose on their statements.
When a scientist - a good one, at any rate - says that something can't be ruled out, I think they mean exactly what they say, rather than some more convenient interpretation some internet troll would like to impose on their statements.
88
When a scientist says something can't be ruled out, she's covering her ass. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I don't know if they still do it, but when I was in public elementary school in Portland (I grew up here), they had us do a fluoride rinse-and-spit for 60 seconds every Friday. They didn't do that in the upper grades.
I don't know if they still do it, but when I was in public elementary school in Portland (I grew up here), they had us do a fluoride rinse-and-spit for 60 seconds every Friday. They didn't do that in the upper grades.
89
i come from a very small town of 740 in northern washington. the water there is COMPLETELY untreated. it is filtered several times but no chlorine and no floride. i have never been to a dentist a day in my life, have never had a cavity, and did my own research of floride in drinking water when i found it mentioned as an ingredient in dasani bottled water. it is good on your teeth but not in your body. it is made for toothpaste not stomachs. long term effects especially on the young are detrimental at best. lower IQ's, learning disabilities, and stunted growth are among the effects listed. look it up, not on government sites but independent ones. the problem with medicating for a one size fits all category is that every body will react differently, and there is no way to tailor the ingestion to acceptible levels for all. if you want good teeth eat healthy food, stop guzzling soda and sugary juice, and brush your fucking teeth with floride toothpaste.
90
@86
"Seething rage"?
Dang, dude. Dang. I just don't even have a comeback to that kind of projection. Not that it would matter! Once again you have chosen to set up and engage a straw man, so, you know, carry on, in your head. You don't need me.
"Seething rage"?
Dang, dude. Dang. I just don't even have a comeback to that kind of projection. Not that it would matter! Once again you have chosen to set up and engage a straw man, so, you know, carry on, in your head. You don't need me.
91
@ 86, From your very link:
See all those words I put in bold? Those mean that they proved nothing. At this point, they're proposing further study.
Now, one thing both you and the far more reasonable schism have so far failed to provide in any comment were actual health problems doctors suspect are linked to fluoride consumption from drinking water. This has been in the drinking water of nearly every major American city for decades, which means that there has to be some uptick of some disease over that time period correlating to fluoridation. (And let's always recall that correlation is not causation - it's simply a reason to see if there is a connection. Which I'll remind you now is not yet demonstrated by science, even this Harvard study.)
Now, I did a little googling, and I did find some crackpot sites proposing that any number of widely experienced health problems were due to fluoridation. They were all easily dismissed because some are known to have genetic links, others could be explained by the seismic shifts in the American diet over the same period, and still others caused by environmental factors in regulation-poor nations but not in the USA. Naturally, these sites had no links to peer-reviewed studies demonstrating links between fluoridation as regulated in America and these health problems. (Funny that you trumpet peer review so loudly in your comment, since you don't appear to be relying on it at all, other than this one study that doesn't propose to have demonstrated anything.)
Sorry, but when you attempt to play the "peer review" card, you have to actually possess it in your hand. You don't have that card.
More...
Even though many of the studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete, the authors consider the data compilation and joint analysis an important first step in evaluating the potential risk. “For the first time we have been able to do a comprehensive meta-analysis that has the potential for helping us plan better studies. We want to make sure that cognitive development is considered as a possible target for fluoride toxicity,” Choi said.
See all those words I put in bold? Those mean that they proved nothing. At this point, they're proposing further study.
Now, one thing both you and the far more reasonable schism have so far failed to provide in any comment were actual health problems doctors suspect are linked to fluoride consumption from drinking water. This has been in the drinking water of nearly every major American city for decades, which means that there has to be some uptick of some disease over that time period correlating to fluoridation. (And let's always recall that correlation is not causation - it's simply a reason to see if there is a connection. Which I'll remind you now is not yet demonstrated by science, even this Harvard study.)
Now, I did a little googling, and I did find some crackpot sites proposing that any number of widely experienced health problems were due to fluoridation. They were all easily dismissed because some are known to have genetic links, others could be explained by the seismic shifts in the American diet over the same period, and still others caused by environmental factors in regulation-poor nations but not in the USA. Naturally, these sites had no links to peer-reviewed studies demonstrating links between fluoridation as regulated in America and these health problems. (Funny that you trumpet peer review so loudly in your comment, since you don't appear to be relying on it at all, other than this one study that doesn't propose to have demonstrated anything.)
Sorry, but when you attempt to play the "peer review" card, you have to actually possess it in your hand. You don't have that card.
92
@87: Computers and electronics contain animal products. I thought you were a vegan. What's the deal?
93
Of COURSE we should question and doubt the value of some miracle cure that's touted and touted and purported to spare us health problems and save us money. Of COURSE we should hold out for clear, solid answers.
But after decades of fluoridating the water in the rest of the country, we've got 'em: Does fluoride prevent cavities? YES! Does it cause health problems? NO!
But after decades of fluoridating the water in the rest of the country, we've got 'em: Does fluoride prevent cavities? YES! Does it cause health problems? NO!
94
@87, *Obviously* balderdash is a paid shill for Big Dental (duh! right?), but he is nonetheless correct that scientists always hedge when their research fails to establish an association because it could always be explained by poor study design. "More research is needed" is one of the most common refrains in the discussion section of scientific journals. Scientists (good ones!) are trained to be modest and skeptical about their work.
95
people who want this nasty chemical waste product in their drinking water should be the ones having to pay for fluoridated water bottles. it's ridiculous that i have to pay extra for distilled or reverse osmosis water if i want plain water WITHOUT all the added bullshit. especially since we dont even have the option to filter it out at home.. activated carbon filters don't take it out. consuming fluoride is useless for your teeth, if not actually harmful. (calcification of the pineal gland for instance). do your research
96
Your rarely fail to disappoint, Matt.
My description of the peer review process was to help balderdash understand the stupidity of his claims that he or his comedy site and "debunked" a study conducted by Harvard research scientists and published by an established scientific journal.
I was very clear about that. Your failure to understand that is shamefully dumb.
What the Harvard study demonstrates is a link between high fluoride intake and significant neurological harm. The authors of the study go on to acknowledge that these results do not necessarily relate to fluoride exposure at levels in the US water supply, but the summary of their report clearly states "Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted."
If you are attempting to attribute to me a claim that there is a definite proven harm caused by fluoride in the public water supply, then you are perpetrating blatant mendacity.
I have been nothing but clear in my remarks that the reports I've read indicate that there is basis for concern over excessive fluoride exposure, that there is not a scientific consensus that fluoridating public water is safe and effective, and that further study is warranted.
You obviously did not read the Scientific American article I referenced in @75. Here is a link to the full article. It is incredibly informative. Read it through to the end, including the side bars. Shut up until you have.
Here is another equally compelling excerpt from the article:
I honestly did not have a strong opinion about fluoridating drinking water before I entered this thread. It was the preponderance of reflexive, uninformed ridicule from the peanut gallery toward those with dissenting opinions that set me off there might be more to the story. So I spent a couple of hours researching and reading, and I was impressed by what I found.
It turns out the book is not closed on the safety and efficacy of fluoridating the public water supply. More study is needed. Reasonable people will acknowledge this.
More...
My description of the peer review process was to help balderdash understand the stupidity of his claims that he or his comedy site and "debunked" a study conducted by Harvard research scientists and published by an established scientific journal.
I was very clear about that. Your failure to understand that is shamefully dumb.
What the Harvard study demonstrates is a link between high fluoride intake and significant neurological harm. The authors of the study go on to acknowledge that these results do not necessarily relate to fluoride exposure at levels in the US water supply, but the summary of their report clearly states "Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted."
If you are attempting to attribute to me a claim that there is a definite proven harm caused by fluoride in the public water supply, then you are perpetrating blatant mendacity.
I have been nothing but clear in my remarks that the reports I've read indicate that there is basis for concern over excessive fluoride exposure, that there is not a scientific consensus that fluoridating public water is safe and effective, and that further study is warranted.
You obviously did not read the Scientific American article I referenced in @75. Here is a link to the full article. It is incredibly informative. Read it through to the end, including the side bars. Shut up until you have.
Here is another equally compelling excerpt from the article:
Now, though, scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift in the country where the practice began. After spending more than two years reviewing and debating hundreds of studies, a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) released a report in 2006 that gave a tinge of legitimacy to some longtime assertions made by antifluoridation campaigners. The report concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency’s current limit for fluoride in drinking water—four milligrams per liter (mg/L)—should be lowered because of health risks to both children and adults. In children, consistent exposure to fluoride at that level can discolor and disfigure emerging permanent teeth—a condition called dental fluorosis. In adults, the same fluoride level appears to increase the risk of bone fracture and, possibly, of moderate skeletal fluorosis, a painful stiffening of the joints. Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.
I honestly did not have a strong opinion about fluoridating drinking water before I entered this thread. It was the preponderance of reflexive, uninformed ridicule from the peanut gallery toward those with dissenting opinions that set me off there might be more to the story. So I spent a couple of hours researching and reading, and I was impressed by what I found.
It turns out the book is not closed on the safety and efficacy of fluoridating the public water supply. More study is needed. Reasonable people will acknowledge this.
97
This statement by the University of York on the significance of the findings of a meta-study they conducted in 2000 (which was dubiously cited by mayor Sam Adams as a basis for fluoridating public water), and its applicability to policy making, must also be heeded:
(The gist: there is no conclusive evidence for just about anything -- risks or benefits -- relating to fluoridating drinking water. More study is needed.)
More...
(The gist: there is no conclusive evidence for just about anything -- risks or benefits -- relating to fluoridating drinking water. More study is needed.)
What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found
Originally released : 28 October 2003
A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD).
In 1999, the Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water. The review specifically looked at the effects on dental caries/decay, social inequalities and any harmful effects. The review was published on the CRD Fluoridation Review website and in the BMJ in October 2000.
We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.
98
Oh and @91, and I can't let this go without a proper rebuke:
"Now, I did a little googling, and I did find some crackpot sites proposing that any number of widely experienced health problems were due to fluoridation. They were all easily dismissed because some are known to have genetic links, others could be explained by the seismic shifts in the American diet over the same period, and still others caused by environmental factors in regulation-poor nations but not in the USA. Naturally, these sites had no links to peer-reviewed studies demonstrating links between fluoridation as regulated in America and these health problems."
So, rather than responding to the articles I actually referenced, you purport to have found other claims by other people which you have personally deemed uncredible (and I guess we'll just have to take your word for it). Good for you, guy! I'm sure that was fun for you, now would you care to return to this discussion, and limit your responses to claims I've actually made??
The straw man criticism gets thrown around in every other thread here, but goddamn, that was a textbook case you presented there.
You are so completely full of shit, Twat from Denver.
"Now, I did a little googling, and I did find some crackpot sites proposing that any number of widely experienced health problems were due to fluoridation. They were all easily dismissed because some are known to have genetic links, others could be explained by the seismic shifts in the American diet over the same period, and still others caused by environmental factors in regulation-poor nations but not in the USA. Naturally, these sites had no links to peer-reviewed studies demonstrating links between fluoridation as regulated in America and these health problems."
So, rather than responding to the articles I actually referenced, you purport to have found other claims by other people which you have personally deemed uncredible (and I guess we'll just have to take your word for it). Good for you, guy! I'm sure that was fun for you, now would you care to return to this discussion, and limit your responses to claims I've actually made??
The straw man criticism gets thrown around in every other thread here, but goddamn, that was a textbook case you presented there.
You are so completely full of shit, Twat from Denver.
99
@ 96-98, being insulted by you is the surest validation of my posts that I could ask for on Slog. Thank you!
100
@98: Computers and electronics contain animal products. I thought you were a vegan. What's the deal?
Also to all the anti-flouride people: still waiting on that one study that finds any relationship between the levels of flouride in flouridated water and health problems. Just one.
Also to all the anti-flouride people: still waiting on that one study that finds any relationship between the levels of flouride in flouridated water and health problems. Just one.
101
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ index.php/ antifluoridation-bad-science/
" Conclusion
There are many weaknesses to the epidemiological studies reviewed in the recent article – high heterogeneity, poor controlling for other variables, no indication of blinding of IQ assessments, and many others. But even taken at face value they do not indicate any association between lower IQ and the fluoride levels added to drinking water in the US. In fact, those levels of fluoride were used as the controls in these studies showing higher IQ. (There was a lot of variance of the effect size, but the net effect size on IQ in the meta-analysis was -0.45 standard deviations). Therefore, if anything, this review adds to the body of evidence for the safety of fluoridation.
This fact has not stopped anti-fluoridation groups from exploiting the review for their own propaganda purposes. Otherwise respectable news outlets are unwittingly collaborating in this anti-scientific propaganda campaign by lazily reprinting these press releases in their news sections – without any editorial filter.
The “fluoride wars” are likely to continue as long there is a fluoridation program. This is evidence that there is no public safety measure that is so effective, safe, and cost effective that there will not be those who vigorously oppose its implementation."
You're a sad, dumb man, Ipso Facto.
" Conclusion
There are many weaknesses to the epidemiological studies reviewed in the recent article – high heterogeneity, poor controlling for other variables, no indication of blinding of IQ assessments, and many others. But even taken at face value they do not indicate any association between lower IQ and the fluoride levels added to drinking water in the US. In fact, those levels of fluoride were used as the controls in these studies showing higher IQ. (There was a lot of variance of the effect size, but the net effect size on IQ in the meta-analysis was -0.45 standard deviations). Therefore, if anything, this review adds to the body of evidence for the safety of fluoridation.
This fact has not stopped anti-fluoridation groups from exploiting the review for their own propaganda purposes. Otherwise respectable news outlets are unwittingly collaborating in this anti-scientific propaganda campaign by lazily reprinting these press releases in their news sections – without any editorial filter.
The “fluoride wars” are likely to continue as long there is a fluoridation program. This is evidence that there is no public safety measure that is so effective, safe, and cost effective that there will not be those who vigorously oppose its implementation."
You're a sad, dumb man, Ipso Facto.
102
Ipso Facto, your constant ALL CAPS RAGE, huge parades of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, random bolding, and name-calling are only confirming people's impression of you as nothing more than an "anti-fluoridation wacko." Just something to think on.
Also, since your argument's last thread is hinging on that Scientific American article, I'll give the only criticisms that the article deserves:
1) At best, the article argues that the limit might-perhaps-maybe need to be lowered. This is great, because people should always be reviewing EPA limits to see if they need to be adjusted. However, it is not an indictment of fluoridation itself. People are always fine-tuning dosage limits for all sorts of substances, yet this is never seen as an argument against the existence of said substances. Nobody expects fluoride to be a magical exception to this.
2) I hate to break it to you, but Scientific American is a science-themed news magazine, not a primary journal. Your confusion of the two only serves as further evidence that you're not as educated and objective as you claim to be (bonus pro-tip: objectivity never, ever takes the form of angry, frothing, all-caps rants berating your opponents as "asshats" and "twats").
Also, since your argument's last thread is hinging on that Scientific American article, I'll give the only criticisms that the article deserves:
1) At best, the article argues that the limit might-perhaps-maybe need to be lowered. This is great, because people should always be reviewing EPA limits to see if they need to be adjusted. However, it is not an indictment of fluoridation itself. People are always fine-tuning dosage limits for all sorts of substances, yet this is never seen as an argument against the existence of said substances. Nobody expects fluoride to be a magical exception to this.
2) I hate to break it to you, but Scientific American is a science-themed news magazine, not a primary journal. Your confusion of the two only serves as further evidence that you're not as educated and objective as you claim to be (bonus pro-tip: objectivity never, ever takes the form of angry, frothing, all-caps rants berating your opponents as "asshats" and "twats").
103
@101 (identity withheld):
You can disagree with my statements, but when you attempt to slander me as "anti-science" you reveal yourself as an irrational and prejudiced zealot.
The obvious truth is that I am very much pro-science, which is exactly why I am impressed by the reports in Scientific American and The Guardian, and by the statements of researchers at Harvard University and the University of York, all of which indicate that the safety and efficacy of fluoridating drinking water remain uncertain.
Would you label any of the people who made those statements "anti-science"?
The analysis you linked to was composed by one individual (a medical doctor) and posted on a blog. (In fact several errors in this person's analysis were pointed out in the very thorough discussion thread of that blog post.)
I'm sorry, but the blog comments of one person do not trump the findings of a team of Harvard research scientists, reviewed and approved by a panel of their peers, and published in an established scientific journal.
Clearly the discussion is ongoing, and there may be evidence for and against any number of possible consequences of fluoridating water. But that is just the point: the case is not closed and there is not sufficient basis for a definitive pronouncement on the potential health risks of fluoridating public water.
I hope you're able to comprehend that despite your apparent hatred of me for daring to apply critical thinking to this issue.
More...
You can disagree with my statements, but when you attempt to slander me as "anti-science" you reveal yourself as an irrational and prejudiced zealot.
The obvious truth is that I am very much pro-science, which is exactly why I am impressed by the reports in Scientific American and The Guardian, and by the statements of researchers at Harvard University and the University of York, all of which indicate that the safety and efficacy of fluoridating drinking water remain uncertain.
Would you label any of the people who made those statements "anti-science"?
The analysis you linked to was composed by one individual (a medical doctor) and posted on a blog. (In fact several errors in this person's analysis were pointed out in the very thorough discussion thread of that blog post.)
I'm sorry, but the blog comments of one person do not trump the findings of a team of Harvard research scientists, reviewed and approved by a panel of their peers, and published in an established scientific journal.
Clearly the discussion is ongoing, and there may be evidence for and against any number of possible consequences of fluoridating water. But that is just the point: the case is not closed and there is not sufficient basis for a definitive pronouncement on the potential health risks of fluoridating public water.
I hope you're able to comprehend that despite your apparent hatred of me for daring to apply critical thinking to this issue.
104
@102
I just scanned through my posts and found not a single instance of a "parade of exclamation points", "huge" or otherwise. You pretty much cripple your credibility when you begin your post with a blatant lie like that, friend.
The article in Scientific American -- which I never claimed nor even implied was a scientific journal (lie #2) -- does not "argue" anything. What the article does is present compelling information, such as the 2006 findings of a panel of the National Research Council, which calls into question the prevailing common assumptions about fluoridation:
P.S. If you review the sequence of posts, dear bonefish, you will see that it was balderdash who initiated personal insults in his screed @78, calling me a "lunatic" and "narcissistic".
I just scanned through my posts and found not a single instance of a "parade of exclamation points", "huge" or otherwise. You pretty much cripple your credibility when you begin your post with a blatant lie like that, friend.
The article in Scientific American -- which I never claimed nor even implied was a scientific journal (lie #2) -- does not "argue" anything. What the article does is present compelling information, such as the 2006 findings of a panel of the National Research Council, which calls into question the prevailing common assumptions about fluoridation:
What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.
P.S. If you review the sequence of posts, dear bonefish, you will see that it was balderdash who initiated personal insults in his screed @78, calling me a "lunatic" and "narcissistic".
105
What is striking about this issue is how much some people want to stifle all discussion of the science, to the extent they will virulently slander anyone who dares question the mass-marketed faith in fluroride.
Lively, informed debate of scientific questions is generally regarded as a good thing, in that it promotes a more thorough analysis of the subject. Yet on the topic of fluoridation, these hecklers fervently swarm at dissenters with vitriol, prejudice, and personal attacks.
This is quite simply bizarre.
It is apparent that there will be no intelligent responses to the points I have raised, and remaining here servers no further purpose. I will not return to this thread.
I encourage rational minds to review the reports I have referenced and form their own opinions.
Lively, informed debate of scientific questions is generally regarded as a good thing, in that it promotes a more thorough analysis of the subject. Yet on the topic of fluoridation, these hecklers fervently swarm at dissenters with vitriol, prejudice, and personal attacks.
This is quite simply bizarre.
It is apparent that there will be no intelligent responses to the points I have raised, and remaining here servers no further purpose. I will not return to this thread.
I encourage rational minds to review the reports I have referenced and form their own opinions.
106
What's really funny here is your insistence that you have been the calm, rational debater and that everyone else is flinging shit (because we've debunked the applicability of literally every single half-related study that you've dug up).
Seriously: read the first 5 lines of your very first post and tell me how they should leave everyone with the impression of a level-headed, rational, and objective person who should be taken seriously. Then read post #83 and tell me that it's an undignified shit-flinging rant that can only come from a person desperate to drive their already-formed opinion into the ground.
Then read your responses to everyone debunking the applicability of your cited articles, which basically amount to "well no this one doesn't talk about fluoride at water-treatment levels, but maybe another one will so clearly only a shill would act as though a fluoride-cancer link isn't as good as proven."
Read all this and then think about whose argument is showing a pre-formed, passionate agenda and who is being careful about what the studies actually tell us.
But whatever. I'm sure you'll stand by your word to maintain a dignified absence from the rest of the thread...
Seriously: read the first 5 lines of your very first post and tell me how they should leave everyone with the impression of a level-headed, rational, and objective person who should be taken seriously. Then read post #83 and tell me that it's an undignified shit-flinging rant that can only come from a person desperate to drive their already-formed opinion into the ground.
Then read your responses to everyone debunking the applicability of your cited articles, which basically amount to "well no this one doesn't talk about fluoride at water-treatment levels, but maybe another one will so clearly only a shill would act as though a fluoride-cancer link isn't as good as proven."
Read all this and then think about whose argument is showing a pre-formed, passionate agenda and who is being careful about what the studies actually tell us.
But whatever. I'm sure you'll stand by your word to maintain a dignified absence from the rest of the thread...
107
@104: "What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study."
You're not anti-science because they believe that it deserves further study, you're anti-science because you believe this is a conclusion that anyone has made. You just don't understand how the scientific method works, apparently.
You're not anti-science because they believe that it deserves further study, you're anti-science because you believe this is a conclusion that anyone has made. You just don't understand how the scientific method works, apparently.
108
@105: Computers and electronics contain animal products. I thought you were a vegan. What's the deal?
110
@106 You realize you're arguing with a guy who thinks eating so much as a drumstick or prawn is murder, right? Though he doesn't actually DO anything about being surrounded by this epic holocaust. Except argue on the Internet, that is. Don't feed the troll.
111
Fluoride will make you stupid and fat, so say NO to fluoride in your water. It is baned in Europe for good reasons.
Fluoride is a neurotoxin and it will drop your IQ by 8 points making you less intelligent.
Fluoride displaces iodine and iodide at molecular level leaving you with not enough iodine/iodide in your body to convert TSH into T3 & T4. This will slow down your thyroid and metabolism and cause you to gain weight.
The problem is that you need to be more than 20% slow before your blood levels will show the this thyroid slowdown, so doctors will tell you that you are ok. 10-20% slower metabolism means 10-20% weight gain.
The government officials are trying to put fluoride in our water to keep us stupid, slow, and fat. They are also covering it up with the need of flouoride for dental health. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes! STOP IT NOW!
Claudia Vargas, RN, BSN, CMSRN
Fluoride is a neurotoxin and it will drop your IQ by 8 points making you less intelligent.
Fluoride displaces iodine and iodide at molecular level leaving you with not enough iodine/iodide in your body to convert TSH into T3 & T4. This will slow down your thyroid and metabolism and cause you to gain weight.
The problem is that you need to be more than 20% slow before your blood levels will show the this thyroid slowdown, so doctors will tell you that you are ok. 10-20% slower metabolism means 10-20% weight gain.
The government officials are trying to put fluoride in our water to keep us stupid, slow, and fat. They are also covering it up with the need of flouoride for dental health. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes! STOP IT NOW!
Claudia Vargas, RN, BSN, CMSRN
112
Fluoride will make you stupid and fat, so say NO to fluoride in your water. It is baned in Europe for good reasons.
Fluoride is a neurotoxin and it will drop your IQ by 8 points making you less intelligent.
Fluoride displaces iodine and iodide at molecular level leaving you with not enough iodine/iodide in your body to convert TSH into T3 & T4. This will slow down your thyroid and metabolism and cause you to gain weight.
The problem is that you need to be more than 20% slow before your blood levels will show the this thyroid slowdown, so doctors will tell you that you are ok. 10-20% slower metabolism means 10-20% weight gain.
The government officials are trying to put fluoride in our water to keep us stupid, slow, and fat. They are also covering it up with the need of flouoride for dental health. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes! STOP IT NOW!
Claudia Vargas, RN, BSN, CMSRN
Fluoride is a neurotoxin and it will drop your IQ by 8 points making you less intelligent.
Fluoride displaces iodine and iodide at molecular level leaving you with not enough iodine/iodide in your body to convert TSH into T3 & T4. This will slow down your thyroid and metabolism and cause you to gain weight.
The problem is that you need to be more than 20% slow before your blood levels will show the this thyroid slowdown, so doctors will tell you that you are ok. 10-20% slower metabolism means 10-20% weight gain.
The government officials are trying to put fluoride in our water to keep us stupid, slow, and fat. They are also covering it up with the need of flouoride for dental health. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes! STOP IT NOW!
Claudia Vargas, RN, BSN, CMSRN
114
If you review the the studies on which proponents base their case (listed on the CDC web site), you will find a range of known health impacts and a number of potential impacts requiring further research. Europe and Japan have banned fluoride. Are they Loonies? They also do a really crazy thing and make sure that all kids see a dentist.
tim, portland
tim, portland
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (115) RSS