There’s nothing that controversial about water fluoridation

Recently, I discovered a friend of mine has gotten sucked into the anti-fluoridation water movement and I debated him and a few of his friends on Facebook, where I felt I clearly won. But of course, as the saying goes, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason their way into in the first place.

But I’ll let my readers be the judge as I lay out the debate (while removing names to protect the innocent).

Person 1’s (my friend) Facebook bulletin:

No one should accept the fact there is fluoride in our drinking water. It is dangerous despite what the government tells you.


I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you on this one. Water fluoridation has significantly decreased tooth decay in the U.S. for the last 65 years. It creates low levels of fluoride in saliva, which reduces the rate at which tooth en…amel demineralizes and increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities. And while recommended levels of fluoride in tap water range from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre depending on climate, bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels.

In the legal case “Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, Maryland, et al.”, an anti-fluoridation group sued the city claiming the defendants deprived them of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by introducing fluoride into public water supplies. This line of argument didn’t get them very far as the defendants moved for summary judgment and the case was dismissed. It was a no-brainer decision as the anti-fluoride crew failed to present evidence that any rights were actually violated. And most of all, they failed to demonstrate that fluoridated water was in any way harmful.

The National Academy of Sciences, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the American Dental Association, the British Royal College of Physicians, the Royal Statistical Society, investigators at Oxford University, and every United States Surgeon General for the past 45 years have all endorsed water fluoridation. And the U.S. Centers for Disease Control included water fluoridation among its list of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. Further, after 65 years of use, we’ve yet to see any signs that we’re all being poisoned en mass by our tap water, and millions of sudden poison deaths are not the sort of thing that’s likely to go unnoticed.

Also, 22% of New Jersey residents had been getting fluoride-treated waters from their tap. In Feb. 2009, the NJ Assembly Health Committee approved a bill by a 10-0 vote to require all of New Jersey’s public water supplies be treated with fluoride (

And in Dec. 2009, the Senate’s health committee passed the bill by a vote of 6-0.
“Jim Schulz of the New Jersey Dental Association chastised the state for ranking 49th in the nation for fluoridating the public water supply, depriving children of a critical health benefit, and urged the bill’s passage.
” ‘Oral health disease is the number one childhood disease in America. It is five times more prevalent that asthma and seven times more prevalent than hay fever,” Schulz said” (

There seems to be no controversy among health professionals. The main critics of fluoridation tend to be lay environmentalists, and the very water companies who’d presumably be left with some of the bill…and of course pathologically paranoid like the “New Jersey Coalition for Vaccine Choice” (

Person 1

Dental caries are far down the list on concerns of the effects of fluoride. The small amounts add up. Of course it is not talked about by the Surgeon General, etc. The government uses tap water to dump these harmful chemicals because of failed military use. It is nothing new. They’ve been doing this for decades. And they are currently working on approving “Acceptable Radiation Doses” for water and food. They have no place to dispose of these byproducts anymore. It’s disgusting.

Person 2

actually you’re all wrong, fluoride does nothing to actual tooth health… good old baking soda and peroxide does. Dental health is down to keeping the teeth clean and free of bacteria, not to mention less sugary foods and of course, saliva production is very important to dental health, so down with fluoride and up with french kissing!


I think I’m going to have to continue to stick with the The National Academy of Sciences, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the American Dental Association, the British Royal College of Physicians, the Royal Statistical Society, investigators at Oxford University, U.S. Center for Disease Control, and every United States Surgeon General for the past 45 years on this one.

Person 1

These are also organizations that ignore the impact of nutrition, effects of pesticides, hormones, etc. on our bodies. Cancer is all around us in the form of water, food, and the technology we are surrounded by.

Person 2

exactly. My father brushed his teeth every single day with peroxide & baking soda, he never had a single cavity. Fluoride on the actual teeth OK, the dentist does this twice a year when one goes for a tooth cleaning, but fluoride in your …body 8 times a day, 365 days a year, 40+ years…. although its a natural occurring mineral, it’s not located near food sources, so therefore it’s not something that should be entering the body on a daily basis nor is it an essential mineral needed for good health. (funny you mentioned the CDC… but the CDC is the actually ruled that the benefits of fluoride are topical, not systemic… so on the teeth or outside surface, not in the digestive system.) Fluoride causes tooth discoloration & lowers the IQ level in growing children. Avoid all issues and drink fresh spring water from a well or mineral water (most contain no fluoride) or finally, distilled water (water that is boiled down to remove all contaminants as is done in 3rd world countries). If I had to pick all the different organizations to agree with.. I think I’d agree with the Centre for Disease Control.. it’s their job to prevent pandemics where as the other organizations are just as bad as politicians… taking money from companies and lobbyists in order to ‘say what people want to hear.’


I’m pretty sure the American Cancer Society is up on what does & doesn’t cause cancer.

Person 2

well the point is, no one really knows what does and doesn’t cause cancer… aspartame is carcinogenic, yet its just about everything, sacchrine also causes cancer, and it’s in most drinks also, and where is the American Cancer Society? chasing tobacco.

Person 1

The ACS actually fails to acknowledge many nutritional links to cancer. Also, these studies exhibit the effects of trace amounts. And because over a long period of time we are exposed to so many chemicals and toxicity, it makes it easy to say that fluoride was not the cause. Rather than rely on self-serving studies, I’d rather not take my chances putting a known dangerous and potent chemical in my body to prove a point.


Even if I assume that you’re correct that the ACS has missed something, I’m still left with the overwhelming consensus of medical opinion from all the other organizations. I’m unaware of any reputable health organizations that are currently… vocally opposing water fluoridation at the currently accepted safe levels. So if not these organizations, I’m left wondering what sources you’re pulling from. It can’t be that bad because it’s been common practice in the U.S. for the last 65 years and the average life expectancy has only dramatically increased since then. Where’s the peer-reviewed data showing harm and why isn’t the broader medical community, especially experts in the relevant fields, actively discouraging it? The first rule of toxicology is that the dosage makes the poison and 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre) is an incredibly low dosage.

Person 1

The medical community is misinformed about many things. And they perpetuate them still. The fluoridation was fought to be made acceptable. And now they are increasing what are acceptable doses of poisonous chemicals. Fluoride was originally used as part of artillery shells. It is what the military used before uranium. To say that there are “acceptable levels” is ridiculous. Acceptable levels of radiation, for example, does that mean that one should regularly expose themselves to those “acceptable levels.”

Person 2

Fluoride in water is banned in Norway, UK, Netherlands and most Western European countries. Their scientists of their national health organisations don’t pose for photo ops, nor do they send out press releases globally. They do their job…… and its as simple as ‘If it’s not essential, then why does it need to be added?’ Fluoride consumption causes premature births, tooth discolouration, thyroid dysfunction and the lowering of IQ levels. If something so ‘healthy and essential’ does this, then why is it still needed? It’s like the USDA turning around tomorrow and telling everyone we must incorporate sand into our diets as it’s rich in minerals and then we all do it because we just trust what they say? The fact of the matter is that numerous pharmaceutical companies lobby to these national health organizations and funnily enough, medicine and medical care for premature births/incubation, tooth whitening, thyroid medicine and ADHD medication are the most expensive out there? coincidence?


But again, if the medical community is not your source, then what more reliable source is this coming from? Sure, medical science makes mistakes but it seems to me that the very people who are most knowledgeable of the subject matter and be…st equipped to address these issues disagree and if the evidence is there, our best means of detecting it is the scientific method, which would demand repeatable controlled tests demonstrating the claim that survive the peer-review process. If this has been done, where can that research be found and why is it being ignored by those with the most applied knowledge on the subject?

Now I’m unfamiliar with this military use you describe, so I can’t comment on it. As I understand it, water fluoridation goes back to the early 20th century dentist, Dr. Frederick McKay, who practiced dentistry in Colorado & spent 30 years investigating why people with brown teeth also had extremely low levels of dental decay. In 1931, it was determined that naturally occurring fluoride in the local drinking water was responsible for both the discoloration & the lack of decay. Texas & Colorado had extremely high levels of natural fluoride, causing the discoloration, a condition now known as dental fluorosis. Years of research and testing in different cities & states, conducted by the National Health Service, determined one part per million was the ideal proportion, giving the same protection from decay, and avoiding the dental fluorosis. Since then, it’s been the standard practice to regulate fluoride levels in municipal water supplies to one part per million. There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades that one part per million of fluoride is best for health, and as far as I can tell, no rigorously conducted scientific trials showing signs of danger.

But again, the first rule of toxicology is that dosage makes the poison, and so I’m not just speculating that there are acceptable levels; I’m saying it’s an undesputed scientific fact.

References & Further Reading

Estupiñán-Day, Saskia. Promoting oral health: the use of salt fluoridation to prevent dental caries. Washington DC: Pan American Health Organization, 2005.

Griffin, SO, Jones, K, Tomar, SL. “An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation.” Journal of Public Heath Dentistry. 1 Mar. 2001, Volume 61, Number 2: 78-86.

Hem, John D. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005. 120-123.

Langford, Cameron. “GOP Hosts County’s Public Health Officer for Fluoride Talk.” Humboldt Advocate. 14 Jul. 2006, Newspaper: Unknown.

McKay, Frederick S. “Mass Control of Dental Caries Through the Use of Domestic Water Supplies Containing Fluorine.” American Journal of Public Heath Nations Health. 1 Jun. 1948, Volume 38, Number 6: 828-832.

National Cancer Institute. “Fluoridated Water: Questions and Answers.” National Cancer Institute – Comprehensive Cancer Information. National Institutes for Health, 29 Jun. 2005. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. <>

Nixon, Janice M., Carpenter, R. G. “Mortality in areas containing natural fluoride in their water supplies, taking account of socioenvironmental factors and water hardness.” The Lancet. 2 Nov. 1974, Volume 304, Issue 78: 1068-1071.


Also, water fluoridation is not banned in any other those nations; public officials have simply opted not to pass bills that would put it into practice. And politicians are not scientists. I’m frightened to imagine what Sarah Palin’s scienc…e policies would be. It’s the scientific consensus and the empirical evidence that matters in the realm of science, not populism nor the actions of public officials. And while most, if not all, of those countries have superior healthcare insurance plans, the U.S. is #1 in medical research. And no other nation in the world hosts more international researchers than the U.S.

You say fluoride consumption causes premature births, tooth discolouration, thyroid dysfunction and the lowering of IQ levels. How do you know this? What is your source for this and was dosage, specifically water fluoridation levels, taken into account? Where are these studies published? And are you aware that IQ levels have been consistently rising 3 points every decade for the whole of the 20th century? This is the Flynn effect.

Person 2

My source is medical studies in all the countries that have banned water fluoridation. Also… living in UK for 7 years and Italy for 6 months, I actually didn’t see more cavities in my own mouth – and I eat loads of sugar. Although I’m proud of being American, I refuse to believe that the US government (or any government for that matter) is 100% right. I worked in politics long enough to know what goes on behind the scenes and let me tell you, it’s not pretty.

Person 1

She is right about the adverse effects of fluoride. Bone fluorosis is a major concern as it is linked to osteoporosis. Also, it is a fundamental problem in civilization that rthere is such a thing as acceptable levels of chemicals to allo…w in the body. Fluoride is the main ingredient in rat poison. I’d rather not put that in my body.

Furthermore, the fluoride in our water system is not pharmaceutical fluoride. It is toxic waste byproducts. It is not FDA approved. There are as many scientists and doctors that are against fluoridation of water.

And, it is unethical to decide that every person should consume fluoride. Especially when cavities are easily preventable. If the government decided to put any “medication” in the water because they said it was okay, I’d be furious.

Person 2

me too! If I know there is something in my food that shouldnt be there (such as the growth hormones in factory chickens and cows) then yah, that’s not going in my body that’s for sure.

Person 3

There is no proof that ingesting fluoride does anything for your teeth. Even studies that the ADA have done backed this up. Topical fluoride does show beneficial results. This is easily seen where they banned or opted out of fluoridation of water. The people without fluoridation do not show any more cavities than people with fluoride in their water.


We can debate the topic forever, so I think this will me my last comment on it before simply saying we’ll have to agree to disagree.

To reiterate, I’ve cited several well-researched articles on the subject and several of the most reputable …health organizations in the world whom endorse water fluoridation as both reasonably safe and reasonably effective. And I forgot to even include on the list the FDA whom, let’s face it, this is directly in their wheelhouse. Pubmed has 2,831 entries on the subject and at least the first dozen I’ve gleaned from the site demonstrate the process as both safe and effective.

For instance:

From the abstract of “Community effectiveness of public water fluoridation in reducing children’s dental disease.” Armfield JM.
Public Health Rep. 2010 Sep-Oct;125(5):655-64.PMID: 20873281

“CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the continued community effectiveness of water fluoridation and provides support for the extension of this important oral health intervention to populations currently without access to fluoridated water.”

Or from the abstract of “Geographic variation in medicaid claims for dental procedures in New York State: role of fluoridation under contemporary conditions.” Kumar JV, Adekugbe O, Melnik TA. Public Health Rep. 2010 Sep-Oct;125(5):647-54. Erratum in: Public Health Rep. 2010 Nov-Dec;125(6):788. PMID: 20873280

“CONCLUSIONS: These findings, when added to the already existing weight of evidence, have implications for promoting policies at the federal and state levels to strengthen the fluoridation program.”

This does not seem to be a controversial area where the scientific consensus is concerned. Rather, for all practical purposes, it is an over-and-done-with issue.

Suffice it to say, I’m not particularly persuaded by references to anonymous studies that seem to have failed to persuade the consensus of experts in the relevant fields, at least as far as the larger claims you seem to be making.

Further, as I said before, fluoridation was not “banned” in the countries you mention; politicians simply voted for whatever reason (which is unknown) not to spend their budgets on such a project. That’s not at all the same thing as banning something. But again, public policy doesn’t always, or rarely, follow scientific recommendations and I think the notion that politicians in other countries have any greater scientific education than those in our own (some of whom deny Evolution, deny AGW, and even believe that the Earth is 6000 years old) is naive.

And again, this isn’t mere opinion of “the government” whoever that is but the consensus of opinion, based on mountains of empirical evidence, of just about every reputable health organization on Earth.

Moving on,there are lots of ingredients in rat poison. Most, on their own, are entirely benign. And of course again dosage is a key factor. Otherwise, one can just as easily say that we need to remove oxygen from our water because oxygen is found in carbon dioxide, which is toxic to the environment. And chemicals get a bad rap these days but without them, we wouldn’t be here. Hell, without chemicals, there’d be no here here. Chemicals surround us, penetrate us, and bind the galaxy together. If you want to stop taking chemicals into your body, you’re going to have to stop eating and breathing. And regarding the ethics of mass water fluoridation, as I referenced before, this argument failed to win any more traction in the court of law and the court of science. And I surmise it’s even less persuasive now that rival commercial bottled waters are ubiquitous in our culture.

That’s it. I case my rest and beyond that, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Person 2

I agree to disagree, I’ll shell out extra money for spring water and San Pellegrino sparkling and know that I’m not poisoning myself :) great factual and intellectual arguments back and forth though, I love it! :)

Person 1

Fluoride has already been proven to be more toxic than lead. I don’t want trace amounts of lead in my water either. Doctors and scientists agree that there are no safe amounts of lead for the body, regardless of what the body can be “put …through.” Also, many of the organizations you listed have dropped their affiliation with the ADA on this issue, as they do not approve of fluoride. I’m with Den, I’m not going to put chemicals in my body, no matter how safe someone tells me they are, while “experts” debate back and forth on it. I cherish my physical being too much.

Person 2

experts schmexperts! we know they are experts because they had the money and misplaced motivation to stay in medical school forever, kissing Academic butt along the way and now they do things like murder Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger and Brittney Murphy. Then they wanna poison us, don’t even get me started on Doctors.


Well, that’s how it went down. I thought I made the best case I reasonably could given my lack of expertise in the subject matter.

About these ads

20 Responses to There’s nothing that controversial about water fluoridation

  1. han says:

    I recently got into a debate like this on Facebook with some friend of a friend over the use of Xanax (his position: it’s poison! it will make you a zombie! try interpretive dance instead! mine: it’s dangerous and highly addictive and thus should be used with care, but is not without its beneficial uses; oh, and interpretive dance is stupid). The exchange went pretty much like the one above and by the end of it I really wanted a Xanax.
    It’s exhausting to feel like the lone skeptic among my circle of friends. But I find that the more I do it, the more it encourages my other friends to admit to their own doubts about conspiracy theories and alternative medicine. I like to think that FB skeptics are having a postive effect, even if we’re treated like brainy buzzkills.
    Keep up the good fight.

  2. ayahoo says:

    After reading your article, I actually now totally disagree with you! Fluoride is dangerous- and researching what your adversaries had to say, I think they won- sorry to disappoint you! :-)

  3. Jack says:

    Please watch this video (link below): a full length video including respected professional researchers, scientists, and health practitioners openly discuss their experience and opinions concerning the adverse health effects and ethical problems associated with the public health policy of water fluoridation.

    Featuring a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, three scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, as well as dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, [LINK REDACTED]

    • mjr256 says:

      Not so fast, Jack. I’ve taken the time to actually type lengthy arguments and cite my sources. You don’t get to just copy and paste or link to lengthy videos as a rebuttal. My time is too valuable to me to research 29 minutes of claims and address them all. I’m not demanding you invent your own arguments but I’m going to have to insist that if we’re to have an actual conversation, that you at least pick out the arguments you found most convincing and present them in your own words, citing the specific authorities you heard asserting them. That’s only fair. Otherwise, for all I know, you could not even understand the arguments in the video but just be ideological anti-fluoridation and simply impressed by shallow, over-complicated and science-y sounding language.

      I’m willing to engage in spirited debate but I’m not going to debate some video presented 2nd-hand. That’s an easy way out for you but saddles me with the burden of having to generate a lengthy response.

  4. MARY says:

    I really think you should research reaearch research.All fluorides are poison.Check out India and natural occuring fluoride.India children are so crippled and going blind.

    • mjr256 says:

      Well, I’m glad we can all agree that research is a good thing. Though I’d add that research quality is often more essential than research quantity. For instance, if I were an ideological creationist, I could convince myself that I’d done years of research when I may have just visited ideologically favorable websites reinforcing what I want to hear.

      And you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t just take your word for it or just take the word of some random internet website over the word of the overwhelming consensus of health organizations around the world, including but not limited to, the Centers for Disease Control, The National Academy of Sciences, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the American Dental Association, the British Royal College of Physicians, the Royal Statistical Society, investigators at Oxford University, and every United States Surgeon General for the past 45 years.

      Additionally, as the anti-fluoridation camp constantly points out, the U.S. is at the forefront of water fluoridation with the process reaching taps in most of the country, and I can quite plainly see for myself that the nation isn’t full of millions and millions of people crippled or blinded by drinking tap water, nor bottled waters with undisclosed quantities of fluoride. It’s like asserting a holocaust without being able to account for many or any dead bodies. Do you know what 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre) looks like? It’s like you’re claiming eating 5 crumbs of a cupcake will make people obese. I, like every reputable health organization on planet Earth, am not buying it.

  5. Rae says:

    Persons 1, 2 and 3 are idiots. One of the main discerning contributors to intelligence is the capacity to learn. After such a long debate, and with ‘me’ referring to a wealth of quantitative and qualitative, proper research, not much learning seems to have taken place. Fluoride is essential to good health, but poisonous in high concentrations. There are studies which prove empirically that fluoridation decreases tooth decay. Fluoride is not banned in Europe, it’s a naturally occuring element, it’s in seawater, groundwater and rocks. I live in Africa and sometimes will recommend the installation of a borehole with a fluoride content of 2.3 mg/l, for example. I think, with the lack of an alternative water source, its the lesser of two evils. What’s worse – a stain on your tooth (maybe), or dehydration? PS only young kids are particularly susceptible to dental fluorosis – from the age of about 7 or 8 years old, no problem. But yes, mess with high levels of fluoride for a long period of time, especially in a hot country at low altitude – it’ll remove the hardon from your spine!

  6. jake says:

    this forum is like evil. Fluoridation is satanic. Obviously the writer in this form is disillusioned and believes the pharmaceutical companies who make profit off fluoride. This person probably also is one of those people who support chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and a ban on psychoactive cannabis. shame on this disinformation agent lose your ego man and study real chemistry.

    • mjr256 says:

      I try to be respectful to commenters. I really do. But when commenters make bullshit accusations they can’t back up, that really ticks me off. This is not a forum for you to perpetuate your propaganda.

      Make a profit off of fluoridation? Are you fuckin’ kidding me? I’ve seen 8-year-olds with lemonade stands make a larger profit than can be obtained through water fluoridation. I want to see figures here. How much “profit” is made from fluoridation? Look it up and get back to me. Then explain to me why you think the mere presence of profit is proof of an evil conspiracy? Do you also think funeral directors are secretly killing people because they profit off of the dead?

      And “those people” who support the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for fighting cancers that you so disparagingly mentioned includes every reputable health organization on planet Earth. These treatments have demonstrably saved countless lives, a fact as proven as heliocentricism. And why you threw in something so oddly unrelated as marijuana is beyond me, since one’s acceptance of medical reality has no baring on one’s political opinions about pot use.

      Either bring reliable citations next time to support your claims next time or expect to be banned.

  7. Shawn says:

    Time makes more converts than reason. Just because fluoride has been used for 65 years doesn’t make it right. In the last 50 years we have dropped down to almost dead last of First World countries graduating scientist, and the last 65 years fluoride is in our water. It is a fact that fluoride causes a significant drop in IQ in kids over time, but forget the minds and intelligence of our young people, as long as they have a great smile (even though fluoride does NOTHING FOR cavity protection). Calcium fluoride is proven to improve tooth and bone health, but of course, its the calcium, not the fluoride. Most fluoridated products contain sodium fluoride, one of the purest forms of fluoride. the one friend in the article talking about distilled water, if you heat water containing fluoride, it actually purifies the fluoride content an makes it stronger . People use big words and have medical degrees to allow them to feel secure and justified. Most doctors and dentist get information from what other doctors and drug companies put into reports, not from actual studies. Next your going to agree in eating GM foods(genetically Modified) because Bill Gates says we should. But he also is a advocator for population reduction and control. Wake up moron. Like Thomas Paine sad, time makes more converts than reason. Your argument isn’t based on any fact but a generally accepted idea passed down to you, like an old wives tale. Your friend is right, fluoride does not occur naturally in food or most waters, so why add something that was a classified poison for hundreds of years. No one makes a profit off fluoride, just a a benefit from easily controlled mindlessness that comes from early childhood exposure to fluoride. On a personal study, since I began using fluoride free toothpaste and fluoride filters in my water, I feel almost rejuvenated. Could it be a placebo effect because of my knowledge of what I have done? Possibly. But my mind went from blurry and broken thoughts to a new awakening in mind, body, and spirit. And my teeth are still white. Just try it for three months, see if your life changes, and if not, you can always go back.

    • Shawn says:

      I apologize for the use of the word moron. Just passionate, but does not make it right. I deeply apologize

      • mjr256 says:

        I don’t think I suggested that just because fluoridation has been used for 65 years, that means it’s safe. The fact that decades of carefully designed independent safety studies have continuously demonstrated it’s safe at the dosage level used.

        I don’t know what you’re talking about regarding graduating scientists, nor why this is even relevant. If there are less graduating scientists, that likely says more about the U.S. economy or a culture that doesn’t appreciate science as much. But in terms of medicine, the U.S. is first class, and the U.S. hosts more researchers from around the world than any other country.

        You make the classic mistake of ignoring dosage, which is the most important aspect of toxicology. Nobody denies high doses of fluoride can be unhealthy and dangerous. But as I explicitly explain in the article (which I encourage you to actually read), we’re talking about 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre). This is a ridiculously low dosage that both has no observed side effects and dramatically improves dental health. So much so that fluoridation is considered by the experts to be among the ten health achievements of the 20th century.

        I’m going to have to insist you cite your sources claiming fluoridation does not prevent cavities. That’s simply not what the facts show. A quick look-up on Pubmed alone brings up 5,926 separate entries on fluoridation. I suggest you take a look.

        Further, it simply flat-out dishonest for you to claim that “Most doctors and dentist get information from what other doctors and drug companies put into reports, not from actual studies” while asserting that you know better than the very people who work in dental health every single day. What are your credentials? How many cavities do you remove every day? Every week? Every month? How many in the last decade? I personally know dentists who have been in the business for decades, and have seen the results of water fluoridation programs in their communities.

        Here’s just one example of one of those idiot dentists you think has not researched the matter at all and has just blindly taken the word of others:

        And yes, I do support GM foods, not because Bill Gates says so, but again, because the science overwhelmingly shows it is both safe and saves millions and millions of lives. If you want to debate science, I suggest you stop just parroting every crazy conspiracy site you happen to find and do some actual science. Then you’ll have data instead of mere assertions that contradict the facts and a host of excuses to rationalize why the facts are wrong because they don’t agree with your assertions.

        I also suggest that if you’re going to attack the character of public figures, you come up with a better lie. Your claim against Bill Gates is easily disproven by anyone who actually bothered to listen to his whole TED Talk instead of just tuning out and hearing what they wanted to hear. What Gates ACTUALLY said was less children dying + better education = population stabilizing (not “depopulation”) and less misery. How horrible to suggest such a thing as saving lives and reducing suffering (the actual topic of his talk)!! But what I find even more amusing is that you accuse me of basing my medical beliefs blindly on what Bill Gates said (even though I wrote an entire article that cites only experts for a different position) and yet you seem to suggest that if Bill Gates says he’s going to kill us all with vaccines IN PUBLIC (a very odd place to make such a meglomaniacal claim, methinks), that is somehow sufficient proof that vaccines are evil. Fuck that. Even if we accepted your flat-out and demonstrable lie about what Bill Gates said, Bill Gates could declare that the moon is made out of green cheese for all I care; that still wouldn’t make it true. We accept things as being true if the evidence demonstrates they’re true.

        And I’ve clearly laid out the facts in my article, so for you to suggest my position is not based on facts leaves me dumbfounded. I both laid out the facts AND cited first-hand sources; you on the other hand have simply made empty assertions for which you’ve yet to back up with any sources. But if you’re suggesting that by simply providing citations, no matter how reputable they are, is the equivalent of propagating mere hearsay, that’s even more laughable a position. No one can be an expert in everything. If you’re saying there’s no such thing as expertise in any particular field anywhere and that citing specialists of any kind is a fruitless endeavor, then Ms. Palin, I’m just going to have to laugh at you for holding such a monumentally idiotic, anti-intellectual position. Good luck never putting any amount of trust in skilled laborers and becoming an expert in everything so that you verify yourself that your roof won’t cave in on you or that your car mechanic didn’t booby-trap your car or that nobody poisoned those vitamin d tablets I’m confident you probably rely on for all your medical needs. And if you happen to get shot with a gun, don’t trust those surgeons as they have no expertise; you’re better off solving the problem yourself. Don’t let pilots fly your planes; fly yourself (but not by trusting all those pilots manuals either because that’s blindly trusting people who are almost certainly plotting to kill you).

        Also, undertakers profit off of people dying; therefore it is an absolute fact that all undertakers are secretly murdering people.So good luck and beware of assassins everywhere…

  8. MARY says:

    what about the EPA?Would you believe some one from EPA who has worked in toxic chemicals such as fluoride?

    • mjr256 says:

      I believe in following the evidence. I also take the consensus of relevant expert opinion seriously. One individual, whatever their expertise, is still capable of being wrong and their opinions must stand up to scientific scrutiny like everyone else’s.

  9. Mike says:


    This site is largely missing the concept of how we are getting so
    much more than the “safe levels” you are talking about.

    Our skin pores absorb fluoride, and just by taking a simple shower you are absobing fluoride through your skin. Ok, now I will get out of the shower, and will inhale the steam which has fluoride in it. After that I go and brush my teeth, with fluorodated toothpaste. Oh and maybe I should use fluoridated mouth wash because I had garlic the night before or just overall have bad breath. Ok Now we can throw in the next thing. Lets take a walk to the kitchen and make some scrammbled eggs on my calphlon frying pan. YUM Its like a fucking fluoridated punch in the face.

    Now I can agree with you that 0.5 mg per litre isnt very much and is probably safe to consume. But when you add in the everyday things that I talk about, you can see how these safe levels can add up very quickly through out your normal work day.

    Keep lieing to the public. Just rememeber the bigger the lie, the easier it is to beleive. -Adolf Hitler


    • mjr256 says:

      What you’re obsessing about is a comically minute quantity of fluoride. Just because you’ve written it out in a list to make it sound like a lot, that doesn’t mean it is a lot. You can do that with anything.

      For instance, I had such a busy day today because I had to get the mail. I had to get up, walk ALL THE WAY to my front door, open the door, then walk ALL THE WAY to my mailbox, open the mailbox door, grab the mail, then I close the mail box before walking ALL THE WAY back to my front door, open the door again, walk inside, close the door again, then walk back to my seat. And then I had to open the envelops. See, what a busy day it must have been because I made superficially insignificant things seem significant.

      Sorry, but we’re still dealing with numbers in the infinitesimal and I’m horribly unimpressed. I don’t know how much mouth wash you’re guzzling by the day, but you’re supposed to just swish 20 ml in your mouth AND THEN SPIT MOST OF IT OUT! You’re like the guy who learns salt is bad for us and then makes a big deal over the consumption of a single French fry. It will be okay, dude. Relax. It’s not that big of a deal. Beer is bad for you too and yet people consume large quantities of it on a regular basis.

      Now I’d go on but Godwin’s Law tells me I’ve won this one already.

      • Mike says:

        LOL, you havn’t won anything. You are just an internet troll. I could care less if I win or lose. It doesnt change the fact that people are consuming an abnormal amount of a toxic substance. Do you know how Fluoride effects your Thyroid? Do you know what Hologens are? I feel like you are skipping a lot of information to help your agenda.

        BTW, beer has fluoride in it as well. Do you really think they put it in to help with cavities?

        How about the fact that you are CONSUMING WATER, not rinsing it in your mouth and spitting it out. More often then not when I drink my water, the water never even touches my teeth.

        Also, why not use Iodine? Iodine has extremely great results when used on your teeth. I have seen the studies. I have talked with dentists.

        Im pretty sure I became more stupid than I already am by reading the paragraph that you wrote about taking your mail out.

  10. Dan says:

    Yep, You won. Thanks for this. Keep up the good work.

  11. john says:

    You sir, are an idiot

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers

%d bloggers like this: