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.

Me

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 (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/assembly_committee_clears_bill.html).

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” (http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-15%2F1260237907230520.xml&coll=1).

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” (http://www.green-talk.com/2009/12/14/nj-citizens-say-no-to-fluoride-in-your-water/).

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!

Me

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.’

Me

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.

Me

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?

Me

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. <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water>

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.

Me

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.

Me

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

24 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:

    Hello,

    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

    Mike-

    • 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

  12. chris says:

    Are any of the Anti Fluoride posters in this article actually going to post a credited link or detailed information? The creator of this post is citing some of the largest research organizations in the world, who have been studying fluoride and its effects for more then half a century. Guess what… THOSE PEOPLE DRINK WATER!! If they found anything even halfway detrimental about fluoride in water, they would say something.

    The future may very well prove fluoride to have negative side effects (even in the small quantities which we currently are using). Yet the point is, we cant just stop using it on a hunch, a hunch mind you that no one has been able to accumulate any proof on negative side effects, for again… over 50 years. There have been many cases for positive side effects of fluoride in small doses, if there weren’t… we wouldn’t use it.

    Yes, we understand that fluoride is a poison in the most simplistic definition. I’m sure that over 50 years of research hasn’t changed that. But get with the times people, we can MAKE organs now, we can send probes to the far side of our galaxy. I’m pretty sure we can trust people who drink the same water that we do, that they can figure out a way for a “poisonous” substance to be beneficial. Hell what do you think pain killers do? Grab any medication off the shelf, read the ingredients, look them up, give yourself a heart attack. OR, trust the people who drink the same water you do, to let you know if they find anything ASAP.

    Did i mention often enough that scientists drink water?

    • redcloud777 says:

      Great Post & thread, I’m glad I came across it –late, when I did. If nothing else for the entertainment value! I really liked the conspiracy theory that implied fluoride was added to make us dumber, to control us better – seems to be working well!!! Maybe it was the Illuminati If only if were that sinister. The real story I’ve discovered is kind of sad and very interesting – read on. Like a lot of human errors, I think it began with a natural incentive, added the arrogance of ignorance, threw in some laziness, and grew from there into a giant case of CYA.

      But seriously, the only thing that matters is the truth, the facts. I like the quote: “facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored”. The hard part is uncovering the facts. As with a lot of very complicated topics like this, there is a tendency to latch onto a simplistic but erroneous solution. The real answer is we are not sure at what level of ARTIFICIAL fluoride is safe or even if it is beneficial at all.

      But I do think you are wrong, and artificial fluoride (keep your eye on the word artificial) should not be added to our drinking water, and you have met your match! So En garde, let the battle begin:
      As an engineer, I like to look at extremes. So let’s use that approach with this very interesting topic.
      First, we seem to know, for a fact, that too much fluoride is very bad, as in rat poison dead – bad. Fluoride is a deadly concentrated poison and not much at all is needed for a FATAL dose. In fact, a single tube of bubble-gum flavored Colgate-for-Kids toothpaste contains enough fluoride (143 mg) to kill a child weighing less than 30 kg (about 65lbm). (Whitford 1987a), and confirmed by me, see calculations below. To put that in perspective, one large grain of sea salt (which has about the same atomic weight as fluoride) and is a little bigger than the period “.” :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: = eat this much, and dead kid !!!!!!!

      I think what the real unknown is how much kids and people are incidentally ingesting in the act of brushing their teeth vs drinking it in their water. After all, the stuff tastes pretty good (like bubble gum!). So when mom or the evil dentist says not to swallow the tooth paste, is it like saying: Johnny – don’t put that bean up your nose?!!! Even spitting it out, at the relatively high concentrations (0.5+%) currently in a tube of tooth paste, I’ll bet a fair amount is still swallowed? So let’s try you figure it out:

      Putting a normal amount of regular Colgate on my brush (a big “pea” sized amount equal to about 1/8 of a teaspoon or 0.625g at 5g per teaspoon (roughly assuming a volume by wt. equivalent to water) at a Colgate toothpaste fluoride concentration level of 0.76% fluoride this works outs to 0.625g*0.0076=0.00475g = 4.75mg of fluoride per brushing.

      Brushing normally, I spit as normal, and generated about ½ table spoon. Then, I immediately sucked really hard as I normally would not do, like a second later, so that “no more” saliva had a chance to be produced to dilute the remaining toothpaste/fluoride mixture still in my mouth and easily generated 1/4 of a teaspoon. This is the amount that would normally be swallowed. Since 3 teaspoons= 1 table spoon, I would normally swallow1/4tsp compared to (3/2 or 6/4 plus ¼ of a tea spoon=7/4tsp) or 1/7 of the amount of original fluoride I put on the brush=4.75mg/7=0.678mg. That seems reasonable and passes my sniff test.

      Do this 3 times a day and you are swallowing 3×0.678mg=2mg of fluoride a day from toothpaste alone even if you spit out all the paste after you brush. No wonder I am getting stupider each year!!!!
      Continuing the logic train:
      The FATAL dose of fluoride is 5-10mg/kg body weight as mentioned above. (Handbook of Poisoning 12th ed 1987)
      And toxic (sickening) effects can occur below 1mg/kg. (Handbook of Poisoning 12th ed 1987)
      So for a 30kg=65lbm or less kid, the fatal dose is about 5×30=150mg (note this checks out nicely with the 143mg # cited above).
      The toxic does is 30×1=30mg. (for a kid) and 150/2.2×1=68mg for 150lbm adult.
      So as stated above, with normal brushing you could easily be swallowing 2mg per day.
      My friends: just with normal brushing considering NO other fluoride input, kids could be getting 2/30=1/15 of a toxic dose per day!

      Ok, let’s take a closer look at Johnny. What if he really does put the “bean up his nose” and swallows? After all, he is just a stupid kid, and remember, the stuff tastes like bubble gum! At 4.75mg of fluoride on the brush x 2times a day =9.5mg (I realize this spreads out the toxic effect over a 12hr period and is not ingested all at once, but I also did not do x3times a day, because probably no kid in the world does that) =9.5/30= 0.32. =1/3 Wow, Wow, WOW!. If the kid swallows, he is getting 1/3 of a toxic dose from no other source! I had no idea it was that high until I ran the numbers. If someone can find an error in my calcs or gross mistake in my assumptions, please let me know.

      Now finally, let’s look at how much artificial fluoride we are getting from the drinking water. Using an average addition rate of 1 to 2mg/M^3 of water at the right conversion rate of 0.00378 gal/M^3 =0.00378mg/gallon of water at the 1mg/M^3 addition rate. This equates to about 1/10,000 of a toxic dose (I agree, it seems pretty low). This means, even spitting you are getting about 500 times the amount per day from your fluoride toothpaste as compared to the gallon of fluorinated water you are drinking. This is very interesting and you can look at it several ways.
      1. The real chronic long term health risk may come from the sodium fluoride we are incidentally ingesting in our tooth paste and not the toxic waste we are fluorinating the water with ASSUMING the sodium fluoride hazard in toothpaste acts the same as the Hexafluorosilicic Acid waste we are adding to the water, and neither is the naturally occurring fluoride ore all the original studies were based on. See what I mean about complicated and tricky details?
      2. You are right, we are talking about very small quantities relative to toothpaste, but neither you are I are toxicologists on the effect of long term exposure to Hexafluorosilic Acid! And amazingly apparently NO ONE else is either!!!
      3. Since we are getting plenty of fluoride in our tooth paste, why are we adding any poisonous toxic waste into our water supply? I know what you are thinking, just hold on….

      What do we know in the other direction, is ANY fluoride necessary for human health?
      “6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride deficiency.”(NRC 1993; Institute of Medicine 1997, NRC 2006). Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride.
      “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”
      SOURCE: CDC (2001). Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 50(RR14):1-42.
      “Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient. Fluoride has not been determined essential to human health. A minimum daily requirement for sodium fluoride has not been established.”
      SOURCE: Food & Drug Administration, August 15, 1963.
      “Fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway.”
      SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335:699-702.” – Fluoride Action Network, top 50 reasons not to add fluoride to our water.
      So it is a slam dunk! We simply don’t need to add it to our water and we are getting relatively huge amount from our toothpaste alone.
      But It gets even more of a no-brainer and interesting, stay with me….
      And since I’m a nice humble guy, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I will give you that there is probably some very low level of NATURAL fluoride for optimum human health including teeth. After all, tiny amounts of fluoride is everywhere in our natural world, water and bodies already. But my position is we do not need to add any ARTIFICAL fluoride to our water to achieve that optimum level, now – you prove that statement wrong!

      Where are your studies that adding Hexafluorosilicic acid helps prevent cavities? I looked at your sources, everything you cite is just a rehash of old old work (uncontrolled meta data). Let’s even say it did , it’s still not justified based on other facts I present above and below, and I can easily make the statement many other studies (agreed not necessarily fully controlled either) have shown it has no effect and may have safety risks, here are some (plenty more online):

      “CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN COMMUNITIES WITH FLUORIDATED PUBLIC WATER HAVE MORE CAVITIES AND
      TOOTH DISCOLORATION THAN CHILDREN WHO DRINK UNFLUORIDATED WATER, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STUDY BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.” -Natural Health, April 1999
      “EIGHT PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS PROVED AN UNDENIABLE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCREASED HIP FRACTURE RATES AND OVERALL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE. THE COMPOUND USED TO ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER IS TOXIC HEXAFLUOROSILICIC ACID, WHICH IS COLLECTED FROM THE SMOKESTACK SCRUBBERS OF THE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY TO PREVENT THIS
      SUBSTANCE, REGARDED AS A SEVERELY CARCINOGENIC HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT BY THE US EPA OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, FROM ESCAPING INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.” -The Lancet, May 6, 2000
      “SWEDEN, NORWAY, DENMARK AND FINLAND BANNED WATER FLUORIDATION BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH WAS KNOWN ABOUT THE LONG TERM HEALTH EFFECTS. GERMANY REJECTED THE PRACTICE AS FOREIGN TO NATURE, UNNECESSARY, INEFFICIENT, IRRESPONSIBLE AND HARMFUL TO THE
      ENVIRONMENT.’ THE DUTCH REWROTE THEIR CONSTITUTION TO OUTLAW FLUORIDATION. FRANCE’S CHIEF OF PUBLIC HEALTH DECLARED THAT FLUORIDATION WAS TOO DANGEROUS.” -British Medical Journal, June 10, 2000
      And a lot more can easily be found.

      Now that we are having fun with facts, let’s look at some more. You state studies have shown lower cavities in areas with artificial fluorination, everybody knows that is true, right? Funny thing is I CAN’T FIND ONE SINGLE TRULY SCIENTIFIC DOUBLE BLIND STUDY THAT DRAWS THAT CONCLUSION!!!

      “10) There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate
      fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been
      added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized
      trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized trials
      (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/rct/) are the standard method for determining the
      safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the
      British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A
      classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and
      Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug
      (http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/).” -Fluoride Action Network, top 50 reasons not to add fluoride to our water.

      The other thing that seems to get lost in the discussion is that there are many different types of fluoride. A few are: “Natural-Calcium”, Stannous, Sodium Monofluorophosphate, Sodium Fluorosilicate, Aluminum Fluoride etc…. It seems like every time I’ve assumed two similar things act exactly the same I’ve gotten in trouble. Why are we assuming the different types of fluoride put into our water act the same way? The type (no surprise, the cheapest and most impure) we are adding to our water supply is Hexafluorosilicic Acid. I like the EU classification label below: (it’s a skull and cross bones and a picture of your finger melting off, in case the pic does not come through)

      What people forget in complicated topics like this (besides failing to discover the real root cause, and as a result, coming to the wrong solution) are the unintended consequences of our actions when we try to improve things (sometimes they are worth it no doubt). But, the FACT is at least 2 deaths and hundreds of serious injuries have occurred due to accidental over-fluorination (think valve/addition system failures). The interesting question is how do you equate these lives lost vs. the supposed (I would argue unknowable) benefits of mass water fluorination assuming there was some reduction in cavity rates?

      “May 23, 1992: 290 residents of Hooper Bay, Alaska were severely poisoned by sodium
      fluoride when the city’s fluoride dispenser malfunctioned, injecting 150 PPM of fluoride into
      the drinking water for over a week. Dominic Smith, previously healthy 41 year-old leader of
      the local National Guard, died of fluoride poisoning after swallowing an estimated 1200-
      2400 mg of sodium fluoride from the local drinking water supply. One overdose symptom of
      fluoride is thirst, and Dominic just kept drinking more water until he died.
      f) Fluoride killed a 65-y ear-old kidney dialysis patient who became
      ill during a blood cleaning process after water supply workers left a
      fluoride valve for too long to allow toxic fluoride levels to flow into
      the public water supply (9) in Annapolis, Mary land.
      Similar malfunctions of fluoridation equipment have occasionally happened nationwide over the past 40 years, each accompanied by a careful news cover-up.
      Fluoride dispensing machinery is not perfect. Human overdoses of fluoride can be found in such places as Annapolis, Maryland in 1979, when their water treatment plant dumped up to 50 PPM fluoride into their water supply, giving approximately 50,000 people toxic reactions. Officials kept it quiet for 2 weeks afterwards saying, “We didn’t want to jeopardize the fluoridation program.”
      However, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis studied the Annapolis situation after the spill, and reported his findings in a book, “Fluoride the Aging Factor”. On page 63 of his book, he stated that more than 5 times the normal number of people died of heart failure in Annapolis during the week following the fluoride spill. During a conversation in 1992, Dr. Yiamouyiannis stated that the actual cause of the Annapolis spill was a human error, done to cover up a mechanical malfunction that had occurred. Evidently Annapolis had a small fluoride day-tank which was supposed to fill up with fluoride and then the pump would stop. However, the pump malfunctioned and kept running after filling up the tank, and the excess fluoride spilled over into a large waste sump before it was finally discovered. To cover up the error, the operator who discovered it deliberately pumped the entire overspill (1,000 gallons) directly back into the fresh-water supply.
      The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 1980:244; 7) had this short PR article on the above fluoride spill, meanwhile carefully avoiding using Annapolis’ name:
      In what the PHS [Public Health Service] calls “the first instance of fluoride overexposure known to
      have caused serious illness in the 35 years since fluoridation of community water supplies was
      begun,” eight patients undergoing renal dialysis (kidney bypass) in a Maryland community
      became ill and one died. Charles M. Wax, MD, assigned by the CDC to the Maryland State
      Department of Health, said investigation revealed that failure to close a valve in the community’s
      treatment plant led to the spilling of 3,800 Liters (1,000 gallons) of 22% hydrofluosilicic acid into
      the water supply. Further investigation, he said, “raised the possibility of widespread mild fluoride
      intoxication within the community as the result of drinking overfluoridated water.”
      JAMA’s report was false, however. Public records show that contrary to the above PHS claim that Annapolis was the first of such a malfunction, the following 12 U.S. communities had had overdoses of sodium fluoride in their water supplies before that time:
      Rome, PA 6/6/72
      Stanley County, NC, 4/16/74
      Lebanon, PA, 8/20/75
      Seattle, WA 5/76
      Stanford Univ., CA 1976
      Syracuse, NY 3/29/77
      Marin County, CA 1977
      Harbor Springs, MI 1977
      St. Charles, MN 1978
      Los Lunas, NM 11/17/78
      Fenton, MI 1979
      Island Falls, ME 1979.
      Further, since 1979 the following communities have also had fluoride overdoses in their drinking water supplies:
      Nisqually Indian Res. WA 1980
      Shaftsbury, VT 8/30/80
      Potsdam, NY 1981
      Morristown, NY 2/7/81
      Saratoga Springs, NY 5/81
      Pendleton, OR 6/28/81
      Jonesboro, ME 10/6/81
      Alameda County, CA 1982
      Rouses Pt. NY 1982
      New Braunsfels, TX 7/3/82
      Painted Post Village, NY 12/14/82
      Plattsburgh, NY 1/1/83
      Marysville, MI 1983
      Crown Pt. NM 1983
      Grand Rapids, MI 7/84
      Vancouver, WA 1/20/85
      Elkhart, IN 2/5/85
      Charleston, IL 1985
      Sequoyah, OK 1986
      New Haven CN 1986
      Antigo, WI 1989
      Hooper Bay, Alaska, May 1992 (one fatality, 290 toxic reactions). –As detailed above.
      In the July 84 Grand Rapids MI spill, 8 PPM of fluoride was reportedly dumped into that city’s water supply for more than a month, before being discovered and repaired. In the 5/92 Hooper Bay Alaska spill, up to 150 PPM fluoride was tested in the village water supply one week before the death of Dominic Smith, the near-death of his sister, and simultaneous flu-like symptoms experienced by over 290 villagers.” – Fluoride Dangers: Death by Fluoride, 7/9/12.

      All human systems will fail, period. Now, I’m not saying there should be no advancements for fear of unintended consequences. But we should look at risks vs. rewards before charging ahead. So let’s take another look if you don’t mind. (just humor me!)

      We know there have been deaths due to accidental mass fluorination release as shown above. And despise the best countermeasures there will guaranteed to be more in the future, in addition to the unknown and unaccounted risks in gathering, handling and shipping and receiving a highly concentrated toxic and corrosive material all across the country. (or even knowing exactly what is actually in it!, but that is a whole different story I will not go into here, think traces of mercury, lead, arsenic, and other crap, etc. and labeled as “fluoride”)

      In risk analysis, one looks at the probability and severity of the benefits vs. the same for the risks to help guide overall decisions. Here we have assuming the most pro-fluoride arguments, a case of high probability of a low benefit (less cavities for a tiny subset of the population) vs. a low probability of a high severity risk (death) from accidental or possible unproven chronic fluoride exposure risks. Average the probability and severity on both sides, and you get Medium (at best) Benefit vs Medium Risk. It is a wash, not a good trade at all for having a known poison anywhere near our water supplies let alone actually adding it to the water and being one accidental or deliberate “turn-of-the-valve” away from a possible Mega casualty event! I’m sure a certain new mid-eastern group, in the news lately, would love to get their hands on those valves!!! Let’s hope there is not a growing list of closet members of the OBL fan club at your local water treatment plant!!!!

      Ok, I have successfully shot holes in all of your arguments except “all the world’s major health organizations” recommend we do it. (also not true, as I’ve shown above, with other major countries that have rejected fluoride “adjustment”, and many other expert smart folks to counter yours easily found online) This is fascinating!! How could this be? Why would such learned, impartial and supposedly noble organizations continue to recommend adding a small amount of a known poison into the water for such a small return with the possibility (granted remote) of deliberate harm and the guaranteed certain yet very small numbers of actual fatalities?

      Stay with me, we are getting very near the end. And, this is the best part for you conspiracy theory lovers out there!

      As briefly as possible, and near as I can tell, here is the likely true story of how fluoride came to American waters: ”In 1938, Dr. Gerald Cox, a research fellow of the Mellon Institute, picked up the fluoride ball and began publicly promoting the addition of sodium fluoride to public water systems, claiming that it would reduce tooth decay. The Mellons owned Alcoa, the Aluminum Company of America, who stockpiled quantities of sodium fluoride as a hazardous waste. Two major obstacles to Mr. Cox’s promotional campaign were the AMA and the ADA, whose initial position was that fluoride was strictly a poison and that it shouldn’t be introduced into the public water supply as a mass-medication. (Reference: AMA Journal, 9/18/43 and ADA Journal, 10/1/44)

      Despite the initial warnings from the AMA and ADA, Dr. Cox enlisted the help of a Wisconsin dentist, Dr. J.J. Fritsch, to promote fluoridation of drinking water, and in early 1945 Grand Rapids, Michigan was the first to fall for their story and fluoridate its water supply. In his crusade Dr. Fritsch enlisted the support of P.R. man, Dr. Frank Bull, the Wisconsin State Dental Health Officer, who organized political campaigns in order to persuade local officials to approve fluoridation. They applied constant lobbying pressure on both the ADA and the U.S.
      Public Health Service (USPHS). Dr. Fritsch was reportedly a “non-stop fanatic” on fluoridation. (Fluoridation the Great Dilemma, Waldbott, p.258)

      In 1945 both Grand Rapids, Michigan and Newburgh, New York were artificially fluoridated with sodium fluoride in their drinking water supply as an experimental procedure to see if fluoride actually would improve dental health. According to testimony of a 1952 Congressional Hearing on Fluoride, the officials in charge of this “experiment” admitted that they hadn’t really had prior knowledge of artificial fluoridation with sodium fluoride (versus naturally occurring calcium fluoride), if it would actually work, nor what side effects it would cause, because the standard scientific laboratory method of first fully testing with animals had been ignored and bypassed in this case of sodium fluoride. (82nd Congress, 2nd Session, Report #2500 – 1952 – House Select Committee)
      The researchers only prior knowledge was admittedly based upon observations that in areas containing natural calcium fluoride (fluor-spar) in the water, such as in parts of Texas and Colorado, tooth decay appeared to be less prevalent. (No allowance was made for excellent nutrition in these opinions.) There were no prior studies made with the highly toxic sodium fluoride, which was actually what they used for fluoridation.
      Note that an “optimum” level of 1 PPM of natural calcium fluoride in water was what they studied in Texas and Colorado, yet they then dosed our drinking water with 1ppm of the 20-times more toxic hazardous-waste sodium fluoride, openly claiming that equal concentrations of each had exactly the same effect on human health. Thus even their starting premise was apples-versus-oranges.
      The 1 PPM value was just picked at random because there were no tests or studies showing exactly what was the “optimum” and because people only supposedly drank one liter of water per day, and 1 milligram was a “proper” daily dose for normal people with normal kidney function. (It turns out that our actual average daily intake of fluoride is 2 mg, however.) During the 1952 Delaney Committee Congressional Hearings, scientists expressed concern that the dosage was much too high, especially for children or people with diabetes or kidney disease.
      The Grand Rapids/Newburgh experimental study was originally set up with the intention to last for a full 10years, after which a proper scientific evaluation of the collected data would have enabled a proper, safe decision to be made regarding fluoridation of the rest of America’s drinking water.
      However, the U.S. Public Health Service suddenly changed their minds. In 1950, after only 5 years, it was discovered that while the cavity rates had indeed gone down in Grand Rapids, cavity rates had also gone down at a comparable rate in Muskegon, its control city, supposedly because people were becoming more hygiene conscious. Muskegon was then promptly fluoridated to cover up the discrepancy, and the Grand Rapids fluoridation project
      was advertised as an unqualified success. (Fluoride the Aging Factor, P.104)” -8/16/2014 Introduction to the Subject of Fluoridation – Fluorine Apathy http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_fluor10.htm 18/37

      So, it seems it was a nexus of special incentive, the easy way out, a “shiny” new topic to latch onto and to show everyone how scientific your new group is(ADA), the arrogance of ignorance (ADA again) and grew and grew into a case of monkey see, monkey do, jumping on the band wagon – so you don’t look stupid, and grew so big the initial reason was forgotten, and the battle became strictly one of saving face and covering you’re @ss. And that is probably the real story of how artificial water fluorination came to America. If you have the “true” story, I’d love to hear it.

      But, if you think (Once upon a time….) the great and wise ADA in its vast wisdom determined the best way to reduce cavities was to add an artificial poisonous industrial waste by-product into municipal water sources, and the best minds of our nation conducted and verified this was absolutely true and that there would absolutely be no long term hazards as proven by rigorous double blind scientific studies (and taking into account all the differences of natural fluoride, sodium fluoride, hexafluorosilicic acid crap, nutrition, confounding fluoridated toothpaste use ramping up at exactly the same time), and conducted the rigorous & detailed risk/benefit assessments (which I’ve shown in ten minutes of thought and in one paragraph to be unjustified), and then searched and search and found all the best, purest, safest sources of fluoride in our great land, and all the people and cities in America went clamoring to have it added into their water systems so they could drink it in addition to eating it, breathing it, bathing in it, brushing with it, and swallowing some more for good measure, then you are the one living in coo-coo fairy tale land my friend, not me!

      Let me be clear. I’m calling it a conspiracy theory to be funny. But it’s not. It is simply human behavior, and it happens all the time! The best and most entertaining book written that explains this is Freakanomics. It is the reason doctors and people today still think too much stomach acid is the cause of heart burn (want to argue that one with me!!!!). It is the reason doctors and people still think high cholesterol causes heart disease and a low fat diet is good for your health!! I could go on and on. All things equal, victory in war goes to the bigger battalions. Here, victory initially goes to the side with the money and incentive in a complicated-close call situation, that’s just the way it is.

      On my own, I’ve come up with a quick hypothetical for illustration purposes:
      Which do you think is more poisonous Arsenic or Fluoride? As it turns out, a fatal dose of Arsenic (BTW, also used as a rat poison!) is close to 120mg (Hand book of Poisons, 12th Ed). This just a little more poisonous, but the same order-of-magnitude as fluoride (150mg for a kid). Let’s say, it was “proven”, a very small amount of Arsenic in the diet ABSOLUTELY lowered the risk of heart disease or cancer some amount for a population subset and there was ABSOLUTELY no risk from drinking such a small amount. Would you want it added to our drinking water? NFW!!!! But what if a “lobby” got behind it, so it would not have to spend money to dispose of it, and actually some make money by selling it, and what if they got the American Heart Association on board to tout the benefits and there was no controlled double blind study that showed any harm at all from such a minuscule amount added to the water, and what if they convinced first one community to do it based on some heavy one sided promotion and the AHA “gold seal”, and then another community did it based on the first, and eventually the whole country did it. And then the AHA and “all the competent sources”, forgetting how it ever got there in the first place, and never doing a real scientific study to the contrary (and even if there was no risk from such a small amount), kept saying it was ok so they would not lose face. Sound familiar?

      LAST POINT, but what about all the folks who don’t brush with fluoride toothpaste??? We have to help them right? See I knew what you were thinking, remember!
      It seems like the “only” population to receive any possible benefit (if there is any at all) from water fluorination is developing rag-a-muffins (who I seriously care about by the way) who don’t know and can’t afford to brush their teeth. For this small subset of a subset, “everyone” in America is drinking a little bit of this crap, and the tax payers instead of the producers (and their users) are paying for the privilege to dump the rest, and vast majority (tons), directly down the drains into our reservoirs, lakes, rivers and eventually into the sea. It’s madness.

      I think there is a much simpler/better solution:
      From some quick research, it looks like a small midsized city pays about $50,000 to $100,000/year to fluorinate (dump toxic, corrosive poisonous industrial waste, calling it factually what it is) into its water supply each year.
      That can purchase, finding the cheapest toothbrush on the market, $ 50,000/.25ea=200,000 tooth brushes per year for a city of 30,000 people. Or even better, let’s say (just for discussion at the moment) 1/10 of the total population=the children at risk who don’t brush their teeth because they can’t afford a toothbrush=3000kids, and each kid needs 5 tooth brushes a year=15,000 tooth brushes are required at $0.25 per brush=less than $5,000. That leaves us with $45,000 to $95,000 to work with.
      Assuming cheap regular tooth paste costs about $2 per tube and last 6mo per kid. $4×3000=$12,000
      Leaving us with a balance of $45,000-$12,000=$33,000 or for $95,00-$12,000=$83,000 per year to educate and deliver the program. This fixes the problem at zero risk of accidentally poisoning anyone or deliberately causing any long term harm! That’s the final no-brainer I was referring to above.

      So in final conclusion, after reviewing a lot of data and discussions, looking at your sources, finding my own, conducting my own original research and calculations, here is my best guess:

      Drinking fluorinated water in such small quantities probably does not do a whole lot of harm, but amazedly, we don’t really know for sure and are still putting this poison into our water. Ingesting synthetic fluoride may or may not reduce cavity rates and getting a bit too much definitely damages enamel (that is proven, and called mottling). We are getting way more from our toothpaste than our drinking water, and therefore do not need to add it to the water even if it did do some good. Brushing with sodium fluoride probably does some good remineralizing tooth enamel but we are incidentally ingesting relatively high amounts in my estimation. We know fluoride is a deadly concentrated poison on the level of Arsenic and that it has and will continue to accidentally (and hopefully never intentionally) kill people in the act of trying to prevent some cavities. It does not have an overwhelming benefit-to-risk ratio that could possible justify it being added to drinking water. The story of how fluoride got put into our water is a shame, sad but likely true. It was definitely pushed on the American public. Yes they accepted it, but it was pushed. We could and should take the money saved by not fluoridating water and educate the poorest to eliminate the sugary battery acid (soda) from their diet and provide tooth brushes and tooth paste to brush with after meals instead ( and teach them WHY to not swallow!). The savants of the world have flipped the argument that harm has not been proven for a known benefit. But, as I have shown in this post, the benefit has not been proven using the ACTUAL artificial additive nor the safety! They are now in a lazy, arrogant, perpetual CYA mode with no incentive to do more research. There is just no money on the anti-fluoride to do much.

      My hope and best guess is the momentum will continue to SLOWLY build (through discussions like this and more granted studies) and that we will eventually reach a tipping point, that will end this crap from being dumped into our water. Well I’ve spent way too much time on this response, but I’m glad I did. Based on my calcs I’ll be cutting back on the amount of fluoride toothpaste I use!

      A good quote: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir”? -Keynes.

      So, how about some humble pie my friend? Who has the open mind now? I like being humble it gives you an out. My other favorite quote is from Dennis Miller: “Of course, I could be wrong”!!!!!!! And in order to help you validate Godwin’s law, I can’t but help end by saying:
      NAZIS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      God bless, good luck, and all the best – Red Cloud 777

      • redcloud777 says:

        Sorry, the third paragraph got bugger up some how. Here is correct version:

        First, we seem to know, for a fact, that too much fluoride is very bad, as in rat poison dead – bad. Fluoride is a deadly concentrated poison and not much at all is needed for a FATAL dose. In fact, a single tube of bubble-gum flavored Colgate-for-Kids toothpaste contains enough fluoride (143 mg) to kill a child weighing less than 30 kg (about 65lbm). (Whitford 1987a), and confirmed by me, see calculations below. To put that in perspective, one large grain of sea salt (which has about the same atomic weight as fluoride) and is a little bigger than the period “.” “::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::” > eat this much, and you have a dead kid !

  13. redcloud777 says:

    It still did not work, not sure why. I’ll type it directly.

    To put that into perspective, one large grain of sea salt which is a little bigger that the “.” here weighs about 2mg. So a fatal dose is 143/2=72 grains is enough to be fatal to a kid. Not a hell of a lot!
    Here is what it looks like>” :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers

%d bloggers like this: