cactus flower wrote:

The thing is, the issue is new to this site and not everyone would have had sight of previous discussions elsewhere. I understand it is frustrating to go over old ground for all parties. One option is not to re-engage.

Perhaps if there was a single study that you feel is the up-to-date "gold standard" for fluoride research you could give us a link and then anyone who wanted to could take the discussion from there.

When we are dealing with a matter that should be verifiable scientifically one way or the other, there should be no need for ad hominems, people should just cite their source showing that fluoride is
a. safe and effective
b. safe and ineffective
c. unsafe and ineffective
d. unsafe and effective.

Does that cover all the possibilities ?

If the (peer reviewed) studies are inconclusive or contradictory, then we may not be able to get an answer at this stage.

For an excellent overview of the current (paltry) state of the evidence, see here: http://www.badscience.net/?p=611

That's a pretty great ad hominem, aragon, and one which I believe is clearly total 'tosh' to boot. The accusation that I routinely resort to ad-hominems is also one that I completely and utterly reject. I have, already been accused of doing so once in this thread, without actually having said anything at all about the people who are disagreeing with me.

Aragon wrote:

To borrow Chekov's own style of argumentation very brifely, he is as a love-struck adolescent before his favourite pop star pin up when it comes to scientists, medics and matters scientific. Fancies himself as an ultra-rational debater. However, when the evidence defeats him - or emotion overcomes him - he can, contrary-wise, and frequently does, resort to throwing around terms like 'tosh' - which are somewhat less than scientific or rational.

I'm afraid that's just total rubbish. I actually consider the vast majority of scientists and medics to be pretty darned poor at producing decent, useful or interesting science. In my own discipline, I consider at least 90% of all published peer-reviewed material to be totally without value. I also do not have any pretensions to be "ultra-rational" and absolutely reserve my right to call tosh tosh.

Aragon wrote:

The remarkable thing is that Chekov refuses to consider the profit motive behind so much of the so-called scientific consensus. For an anarchist, this is pretty extraordinary. He is quite happy to acknowledge and condemn the profit motive's manifestations in other contexts but for some bizarre reason enitrely overlooks the possibility that it can be just as contaminating of the scientific world as it is the political.

The remarkable thing about that is that it's entirely opposite to the truth. I consider the profit motive to be easily the strongest force that drives scientific research, a force that has an invidious and pernicious effect. Not only do I think this, contrary to your wildly inaccurate claim, I have published several articles in various places about this from an altogether disapproving point of view.

Aragon wrote:

He has no problem identifying either overt or subtle influences of the corporate sector on the media,eg, but when it comes to science - the claims of the corporate interestes that almost totally control it are beyond question. Like Lord Denning who could not contemplate the 'appalling vista' of the possibility that the police would be capable of deliberately jailing innocent men, so with Chekov and the men and women in white coats.

Just complete crap. There are significant numbers of scientists who are happy to do horrible stuff and to grossly distort the scientific method in pursuit of results that their paymasters want.

Aragon wrote:

Another point of omission in his arguments is his failure to address the fundamental wrong of forcing Irish people to ingest a substance which many of them believe is poisonous and injurious to health. If the 'vitamin sellers' he so despises were suddenly to find themselves in the scientific ascendancy, (increasingly likely - there is a lot of money to be made after all) would he support any attempt by them to force people to take vitamins 'for their own good'?

As it happens, I'm actually against flouridisation of the water supply due to the lack of evidence of its efficacy. It's just priority number 10,023,323 on my list of things that I'd like to change about the world due to the fact that there's no evidence of any health risks at all.

OK then Chekov, proove me wrong. Are you saying that the profit motive has had no influence on compulsory fluouridation of the Irish water supply? That it has never influenced the issue in any way?

Sadly, it seems that my request for some useful links to the best available data is not likely to be replied to. When I have some time, I will look for some myself and come back to this thread.

cactus flower wrote:

Sadly, it seems that my request for some useful links to the best available data is not likely to be replied to. When I have some time, I will look for some myself and come back to this thread.

Did you miss my link? Or is it not up to scratch?

Aragon wrote:

OK then Chekov, proove me wrong. Are you saying that the profit motive has had no influence on compulsory fluouridation of the Irish water supply? That it has never influenced the issue in any way?

Who does profit from it? Soubresauts has also used this line, but I don't remember which special influence group is claimed.

Aragon wrote:

OK then Chekov, proove me wrong. Are you saying that the profit motive has had no influence on compulsory fluouridation of the Irish water supply? That it has never influenced the issue in any way?

No, I'm not. But it is an enormously weak influence in this case. The flouridisation industry is tiny, not very profitable and completely incapable of manipulating international scientific and medical opinion in any meaningful way.

So why are we using it, Chekov? Do you think the people making the decision are genuinely convinced of its efficacy? Do the studies support that?

cactus flower wrote:

So why are we using it, Chekov? Do you think the people making the decision are genuinely convinced of its efficacy? Do the studies support that?

There is weak, inconclusive evidence showing around a 15% increase in children without cavities in flouridated areas, although this correlation could be caused by all sorts of other stuff. This, by the way, is with reference to the efficacy of 'mass flouridisation' of the water supply. It has been known for a very long time that flouride does help to fight tooth decay (that's why they put it in toothpaste at MUCH higher dosages than in water). The only uncertainty is whether and to what extent the water-supply delivered flouride works in practice.

From this state of the evidence, there is a judgement call to be made. Some people think that given the known efficacy of flouride and the lack of evidence of any harm at all, it is prudent to continue with its use despite the relatively poor evidence available as to the efficacy of the particular programme. Others come down on the other side of the question, thinking the risk of possible harm (which is impossible to eliminate with any substance) outweighs the benefits, given the scanty evidence supporting those benefits.

As explained earlier, Im having problems with my toolbar and cant provide the link to this interesting article. Apologies for cut and paste and will post the second half of the article separately in the next post.

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation
by Paul Connett, PhD
(See original article)
Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.
For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective". However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming.
To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.
For those for whom ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn't be forcing medication on people without their "informed consent". The bad news is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:
1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.
As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:
1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.
Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:
1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:
1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

[Rest of article in post to follow]

Second half of the article above [The absurdity of water fluoridation] - as promised:

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:
1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:
1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:
1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.
The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.
Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.
However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential - in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm - that the US Government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.
But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood - science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the internet and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue.
With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.
I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can't than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.
Paul Connett.
All references cited can be found at http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

I was surprised when Chekov waded into this discussion so poorly armed as regards arguments, evidence, and so on. Then I remembered he probably has an animus towards me since I challenged him in a discussion last year. That was about vaccination, another issue on which the Greens did a pre-election climb-down. In that discussion...

chekov wrote:

I think water fluoridisation is a good thing on the balance of evidence...

When I asked why, he replied:

Quote :

The support by many dental associations. They are generally much more knowledgeable than I am (or you are) about the evidence.

The dental associations actually make a point of ignoring the evidence. And when the truth about fluoridation's effects gets out to the general public, the dentists will throw their hands up and bleat "How were we to know? We're only dentists."

Anyway, Chekov was contradicting himself:

Quote :

...an argument from authority - which I have no time for at all. In actual fact, I tend to think that science is simple in essence and can be understood by almost anybody who tries. The very best scientific thinker that I know has absolutely zero formal training in scientific subjects for example.

I'm inclined to say simply that Chekov is wrong in every respect, but I suppose some response is required. So...

chekov wrote:

Maybe the government listens to them [the dentist academics] because, I dunno, they know what they're talking about and stuff?

Indeed you don't know.

Quote :

I mean, do you think they should form public policy on the basis of
a) the considered opinions of the scientists who are considered to be the greatest experts by their peers?
b) a quick google of alarmist internet sites?

Greatest experts? Who? Can you name even one of them?

The world's greatest experts on fluoride are to be found here.

Quote :

I presume your reference to the word "evidence" [of aluminium/fluoride synergistic effects] really means "madcap stuff on the websites of snake-oil salesmen".

America's highest scientific authority is the National Academy of Sciences. Their National Research Council produced a report in 2006 on Fluoride in Drinking Water. Check out the references to "aluminum" on this page.

chekov wrote:

For an excellent overview of the current (paltry) state of the evidence, see here: http://www.badscience.net/?p=611

"Excellent overview"? It is a weak, fence-sitting article, and Goldacre makes one sweeping statement that is disappointingly inaccurate:

Goldacre wrote:

The reality is that anybody making any confident statement about fluoride – positive or negative – is speaking way beyond the evidence.

That attitude of "I have spoken and there is no more to be said" is hopeless. Compare what the world's leading pharmacologist says, here.

But I noticed before (in the above-mentioned discussion) that Chekov hero-worships Goldacre...

Quote :

Ben Goldacre... is my favourite journalist bar none. I have never known him to use anything but the most principled and scientifically sound arguments, he never argues from authority, always explains his principles in elementary and approachable language and is admirably fair.

Did Goldacre show great concern and sympathy for the six million English people who are being dosed, willy-nilly, morning, noon & night, with unmeasured amounts of hydrofluorosilicic acid, on the basis of the aforementioned bad science? Um, no, he didn't.

By the way, Goldacre's website still links to the rabidly pro-fluoridation Quackwatch site of Stephen "Combover" Barrett.

chekov wrote:

As it happens, I'm actually against flouridisation of the water supply due to the lack of evidence of its efficacy.

Oh really? Has Goldacre's little article changed your mind then?

Quote :

It's just priority number 10,023,323 on my list of things that I'd like to change about the world due to the fact that there's no evidence of any health risks at all.

Chekov's list of priorities must be jaw-dropping stuff.

But about the evidence... There is actually a vast amount of evidence of health risks from fluoridation. You could start with the NRC report, and this.

Quote :

The flouridisation industry is tiny, not very profitable and completely incapable of manipulating international scientific and medical opinion in any meaningful way.

Completely misleading and misinformed. (And strange that you won't write "fluoridation".) Please read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, and then come back to us.

Quote :

From this state of the evidence, there is a judgement call to be made. Some people think that given the known efficacy of flouride and the lack of evidence of any harm at all [Wrong again, Chekov], it is prudent to continue with its use despite the relatively poor evidence available as to the efficacy of the particular programme. Others come down on the other side of the question, thinking the risk of possible harm (which is impossible to eliminate with any substance) outweighs the benefits, given the scanty evidence supporting those benefits.

Ever heard of the Precautionary Principle? And what about consumer choice, human rights, forced medication, principles of medicine?

In December 1961, Sweden's Supreme Administrative Court unanimously agreed that "the possibility cannot be precluded that fluoridation will involve certain risks or disadvantages to the health of those who are constrained to make use of this water." The court ruled that fluoridation was not permissible under the Swedish Health Act.

Less than three years later, the Irish courts decided in the opposite direction, despite hearing a vast amount of scientific evidence against fluoridation, evidence that has never been refuted. And evidence against fluoridation has accumulated hugely in the meantime.

The only possible evidence-based argument in favour of fluoridation is the surveys of children's dental health in fluoridated vs non-fluoridated communities (especially RoI vs Northern Ireland). Now apart from the fact that all those surveys have been carried out by the dentists whose reputations depend on fluoridation (O'Mullane, Whelton, Clarkson and their minions), the argument is demolished by the evidence about delayed eruption caused by fluoride ingestion. See here.

Meanwhile, fluoridation in Ireland is run by a bunch of quangos; see here.
No good science, no evidence, no benefit, no one responsible, no politician asking a question. Just shut up and drink your fluoride (which you're paying for, in money and health).

44 years of Irish fluoridation. No end?

The issue of dosage seems important, and also possibly the age of recipient. If age is an issue, then the public water supply may not be the best mode of delivery. Is there a study/studies that looks at toxicity in relation to different age groups?

What is the dosage in Ireland and how does that compare with the US recommendation?

Is the dosage monitored independently? In our area there is a persistent history of excessive aluminium levels, acknowledged by the EU Commission.

Sorry for all the questions, but the posters on this thread seem to have a good knowledge of this issue, notwithstanding different viewpoints.

AGD IMPACT:
An official publication off the Academy of General Dentistry

February 1987

The Science and Politics of Fluoride

By Zev Ramba
Washington Bureau Editor

Dental and medical groups have been battling anti-fluoridationists since the first dose of fluoride was metered into the water of Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945. For decades, it seemed that dentistry was winning those battles - that science was prevailing over the rhetoric of the antifluoridationists.

Today the battle lines are not so clearly drawn. The anti-fluoridation movement has found supporters on the left as well as the right, particularly among groups dedicated to safeguarding the environment. And as the base of support broadens, community fluoridation appears to be losing ground. About 60 percent of the 2,000 referendums on fluoridation held in the U.S. Since 1950 have been voted down. A 1985 poll by ADA found that 36 percent of the 255 fluoridation programs surveyed had been cancelled, and 14 percent had been delayed or cut back.

As the "antis" have become more effective, organized dentistry and other supporters of fluoride have become less effective. The reason may be, in part, our unwillingness to release any information that could cast fluoride in a negative light. That unwillingness probably comes from the anti's penchant for distorting and misusing scientific information. But organized dentistry's reduced effectiveness comes mainly from losing its objectivity - the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion.

The current dispute at the Environmental Protection Agency over raising the maximum safe level of fluoride in public water supplies is a case in point. The EPA was pressured by supporters of fluoride, however well-meaning, and by states that would have to remove excess fluoride, to raise the standard to a level that now borders on unsafe, according to EPA's own scientific review.

EPA's actions were not driven by science, but by political pressure from supporters of fluoride. In its zeal to fight the anti-fluoridationists, dentistry appears to be overlooking data that shows that some communities will face harmful effects from high levels of fluoride. The American Dental Association supported South Carolina's bid to remove fluoride from the list of drinking water contaminants regulated by EPA. When they took that tack, they mirrored the anti's argument against fluoridation because the ignored the issue of dosage. At optimal levels, fluoride reduces decay and produces no harmful effects; at the higher levels that deregulation would have permitted, it is a toxin.

The supporters of fluoride, from the U.S. Surgeon General on down, need to return to objectivity in fighting the antis. Regulating fluoride along with drinking water contaminants may provide a bit of fuel for anti-fluoridationists , but dentistry's attempts to deregulate it will supply the antis with even more ammunition. Fluoride is too effective a public health measure to be held back by political gamesmanship

cactus flower wrote:

The issue of dosage seems important, and also possibly the age of recipient. If age is an issue, then the public water supply may not be the best mode of delivery.

"Best mode of delivery"??

No one needs fluoride, ever!

Why would you want to deliver a poison to anybody?

soubresauts wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The issue of dosage seems important, and also possibly the age of recipient. If age is an issue, then the public water supply may not be the best mode of delivery.

"Best mode of delivery"??

No one needs fluoride, ever!

Why would you want to deliver a poison to anybody?

There is a major contradiction in what you say, Chekov. On the one hand you recommend that we unquestioningly accept the recommendations of scientists because they are scientists and, by implication, are infallible and incorruptible.

You then go on to express your admiration for an unnamed individual who has no scientific training or experience but, again by implication, whose support for your point of view is presumably further proof of his or her great and logical mind.

However, can you consider the possibility that there are equally intelligent and thinking people who might legitmately come to a different conlclusion? Can you add to that the fact that many of the people who have concluded differently about fluoridation are also scientifically qualified, have conducted directly relevant research on this topic and are therefore even more qualified to comment - as well as being - even just occasionally - as great and objective as yourself and your hero?

Your position boils down to an almost irrational willingness to disregard your critical faculties based on some extraordinary theory of scientists being somehow impervious to human failing - and to sneer at people who choose not to do that. It's about as unscientific and illogical a perspective as it could be, in fact.

Ball not man please....and that means all of you

MOD

soubresauts wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The issue of dosage seems important, and also possibly the age of recipient. If age is an issue, then the public water supply may not be the best mode of delivery.

"Best mode of delivery"??

No one needs fluoride, ever!

Why would you want to deliver a poison to anybody?

Medical reasons, usually - the list of poisonous substances in use in medicine is very long.

Aragon wrote:

There is a major contradiction in what you say, Chekov. On the one hand you recommend that we unquestioningly accept the recommendations of scientists because they are scientists and, by implication, are infallible and incorruptible.

You then go on to express your admiration for an unnamed individual who has no scientific training or experience but, again by implication, whose support for your point of view is presumably further proof of his or her great and logical mind.

However, can you consider the possibility that there are equally intelligent and thinking people who might legitmately come to a different conlclusion? Can you add to that the fact that many of the people who have concluded differently about fluoridation are also scientifically qualified, have conducted directly relevant research on this topic and are therefore even more qualified to comment - as well as being - even just occasionally - as great and objective as yourself and your hero?

Your position boils down to an almost irrational willingness to disregard your critical faculties based on some extraordinary theory of scientists being somehow impervious to human failing - and to sneer at people who choose not to do that. It's about as unscientific and illogical a perspective as it could be, in fact.

It is impossible to debate with somebody who constantly attacks you for disagreeing with them. I mean this is the second post that you've contributed to this thread which amounts purely to an attack on my character - the fact that it's a total and utter pack of lies and is directly contradicted by my last response, which you have apparently totally ignored, does not give me much motivation in continuing. It is also totally impossible to argue anything when you keep introducing random and new points (vaccination!!! wtf?) and just spew out a whole load of cherry-picked factoids without any attempt to evaluate the real risks or come to any type of balanced assessment, prefering to see anybody who argues against ye as the ENEMY who can only be driven by hidden agendas or, as in my case, personality defects.

ibis wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

Why would you want to deliver a poison to anybody?

Medical reasons, usually - the list of poisonous substances in use in medicine is very long.

So you agree that hydrofluorosilicic acid is a medicine? Which doctors prescribed it for all of us? When was it ever tested for safety or efficacy? Why does it have no medicinal licence? Why does the Irish Medicines Board wash its hands of it? Why is there not one Irish medical doctor willing to defend fluoridation in public debate?

And you're happy to drink the stuff, in unmeasured amounts?

You're not making sense, ibis.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

Why would you want to deliver a poison to anybody?

Medical reasons, usually - the list of poisonous substances in use in medicine is very long.

So you agree that hydrofluorosilicic acid is a medicine? Which doctors prescribed it for all of us? When was it ever tested for safety or efficacy? Why does it have no medicinal licence? Why does the Irish Medicines Board wash its hands of it? Why is there not one Irish medical doctor willing to defend fluoridation in public debate?

And you're happy to drink the stuff, in unmeasured amounts?

You're not making sense, ibis.

There are studies suggesting benefits, and studies suggesting it's safe - likewise, there are studies suggesting it has no benefit, and studies suggesting it's unsafe. The evidence on balance is slightly favourable, but open to argument.

I don't see anything wrong with arguing the case, but I don't see any particular reason to get obsessive over it. If the stuff was as dangerous as one might think from your comments, people would be lying dead in the streets of flouride poisoning, and the matter wouldn't be arguable. Frankly, I could easily be persuaded to be opposed to fluoride, but not by wild claims that simply ignore any contrary evidence.

I too am open to being convinced either way, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence.

It current studies are not conclusive, I suppose we are back with the issue of the precautionary principle.

But Ibis nobody is asking you to form an opinion based on 'wild claims'. You don't deal with the specifics of what Soubresauts is saying - and disgregard scientificaly valid studies which have been presented to you in this thread. I can refer you for instance to Paul Connett's article above - which is comprehensively linked to many studies that you can read through. If there is any 'wildness' in this situation, it is the claims of the fluoride promoters about the desirability of polluting our drinking water with the stuff.

In the final analysis, the idea of enforced medication is simply wrong - medically and ethically.