Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Coffey

Flouride/Water Fluoridation

146 posts in this topic

Yes I did because it is bullsh!t. Everyones water supply is flouridated because poor people cannot afford toothpaste or dental care? Even affluent communities water supply has flouride in it. Your post is garbage. Sorry

I gave you a link to a credible source. What you choose to believe with regard to governmental motivations for fluoridating water supplies is your own business, I suppose. However, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you might do well to give rational, well-thought out responses rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks and the sort of casual dismissal seen above.

Public health measures are often administered to the population at large. Though low-income individuals may benefit the most from fluoridated water supplies due to their relatively limited access to dental care, fluoridation provides preventative benefits for the affluent as well. There's no reason to restrict access to a preventative measure that has been proven safe and effective for all, if it is cost-effective.

There's great irony in you calling Neognosis' post "asinine" when you, in fact, misinterpreted what he had to say. I attempted to correct your misunderstanding by pointing out that even things that are beneficial at a low dose can become dangerous past a certain threshold of concentration or amount (i.e.- too high). I believe Neognosis was not implying that fluoride is essential to our survival, but rather that even good things, such as oxygen, can be harmful at a sufficient dose.

On a tube of colgate childrens toothpaste the label states:

Sodium Flouride 0.24% (0.15% flouride ion)

WARNINGS

if more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact Poison Control right away.

Adult toothpaste is similar in Flouride content and warning.

I believe this is a precautionary measure taken not because swallowing toothpaste is particularly harmful, but because it is not specifically registered for human consumption as a food, and because fluoride is considered a drug. In other words, I think this is a legal requirement based on politics

But the Food and Drug Administration wants to be on the safe side -- too safe, some say. The agency required the new warning on all fluoride pastes manufactured after April 1997 after concluding that manufacturers were either ignoring its voluntary guidelines or interpreting them too broadly. The change is only now catching most consumers' attention as stores sell out old inventories.

No ambulances will be necessary. The F.D.A. ordained the advisory not because some new study suggested more serious side effects, but because it believes that any product that contains a substance classified as a drug should be labeled with a recommendation to seek professional help in cases of excess ingestion.

http://www.nytimes.c...sk-the-fda.html

The ADA warning labels were required to help reduce the risk of mild fluorosis, which is a cosmetic defect noticeable as very light spots on permanent teeth and develops only while the teeth are still forming. Fluorosis only occurs when more than the optimal daily amount of fluoride is ingested.

http://www.ada.org/1761.aspx

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave you a link to a credible source. What you choose to believe with regard to governmental motivations for fluoridating water supplies is your own business, I suppose. However, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you might do well to give rational, well-thought out responses rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks and the sort of casual dismissal seen above.

Public health measures are often administered to the population at large. Though low-income individuals may benefit the most from fluoridated water supplies due to their relatively limited access to dental care, fluoridation provides preventative benefits for the affluent as well. There's no reason to restrict access to a preventative measure that has been proven safe and effective for all, if it is cost-effective.

There's great irony in you calling Neognosis' post "asinine" when you, in fact, misinterpreted what he had to say. I attempted to correct your misunderstanding by pointing out that even things that are beneficial at a low dose can become dangerous past a certain threshold of concentration or amount (i.e.- too high). I believe Neognosis was not implying that fluoride is essential to our survival, but rather that even good things, such as oxygen, can be harmful at a sufficient dose.

I believe this is a precautionary measure taken not because swallowing toothpaste is particularly harmful, but because it is not specifically registered for human consumption as a food, and because fluoride is considered a drug. In other words, I think this is a legal requirement based on politics

But the Food and Drug Administration wants to be on the safe side -- too safe, some say. The agency required the new warning on all fluoride pastes manufactured after April 1997 after concluding that manufacturers were either ignoring its voluntary guidelines or interpreting them too broadly. The change is only now catching most consumers' attention as stores sell out old inventories.

No ambulances will be necessary. The F.D.A. ordained the advisory not because some new study suggested more serious side effects, but because it believes that any product that contains a substance classified as a drug should be labeled with a recommendation to seek professional help in cases of excess ingestion.

http://www.nytimes.c...sk-the-fda.html

The ADA warning labels were required to help reduce the risk of mild fluorosis, which is a cosmetic defect noticeable as very light spots on permanent teeth and develops only while the teeth are still forming. Fluorosis only occurs when more than the optimal daily amount of fluoride is ingested.

http://www.ada.org/1761.aspx

and I see you opted not to answer my question as to how much flouride is in a gallon if tap water...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluoride was a common ingredient in rat poison.Since the 1800s, fluoride has been a key component in rat poison and insecticides. When mixed into grain or other food, rats will readily consume the poison and die. This method was deemed to be preferable to other poisonous compounds because it was less hazardous to the humans and livestock that might accidentally ingest it. The use of fluoride in rat poison has declined over the years, replaced by blood-thinning compounds that were deemed to be safer and more effective. http://www.ehow.com/...rat-poison.html

I think I will stick to drinking distilled water and visiting the dentist on a regular basis instead of drinking tap water with flouride in it which was once used to kill rats.

By the way, don't medical researchers still use rats and mice for testing drugs effects on humans?

Coumadin is in rat poison too (main ingredient actually) and I took it for two years after a bout with pulmonary embolisms...just because something is harmful to rats in a certain amount doesn't mean it's harmful to humans in a very different amount...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just because something is harmful to rats in a certain amount doesn't mean it's harmful to humans in a very different amount.

the human gut is more susceptible to absorb fluoride than a rat's gut - rats have to ingest much higher concentrations of fluoride in order to get the same blood levels of fluoride as humans. so where you see experiments on rats fed high levels of fluoride remember that humans don't have to ingest as much as rats to get the same blood levels (which is the important metric), I don;t recall the exact amount but i think rats need to be fed an order of magnitude more than humans to produce the same blood levels.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how much flouride is in a gallon if tap water.

with fluoridation at 1ppm

a US gallon will contain 3.8 mg of fluoride

a UK gallon will contain 4.5 mg of fluoride

your dose will of course go up with expose to other sources of fluoride, dental gel for instance contains 15,000 ppm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I see you opted not to answer my question as to how much flouride is in a gallon if tap water...

It was in the link I posted to the meta-analysis of Chinese studies: "fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure"

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ehp.1104912.pdf

Edited by Cybele
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the human gut is more susceptible to absorb fluoride than a rat's gut - rats have to ingest much higher concentrations of fluoride in order to get the same blood levels of fluoride as humans. so where you see experiments on rats fed high levels of fluoride remember that humans don't have to ingest as much as rats to get the same blood levels (which is the important metric), I don;t recall the exact amount but i think rats need to be fed an order of magnitude more than humans to produce the same blood levels.

Can fluoridated water cause cancer?

A possible relationship between fluoridated water and cancer risk has been debated for years. The debate resurfaced in 1990 when a study by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, showed an increased number ofosteosarcomas (bone tumors) in male rats given water high in fluoride for 2 years (4). However, other studies in humans and in animals have not shown an association between fluoridated water and cancer (57).

In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report, the agency said it found no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans. The report, based on a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population) studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date (5).

In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at NCI evaluated the relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (6).

In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer (6). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The CDC report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer (2). Subsequent interview studies of patients with osteosarcoma and their parents produced conflicting results, but with none showing clear evidence of a causal relationship between fluoride intake and risk of this tumor.

Recently, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way: they measured fluoride concentration in samples of normal bone that were adjacent to a person’s tumor. Because fluoride naturally accumulates in bone, this method provides a more accurate measure of cumulative fluoride exposure than relying on the memory of study participants or municipal water treatment records. The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors (7).

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the meta-analysis based on Chinese data, I would like to point out what seems to be a major flaw of the study. The article points out that over 80% of the studies did not report the child's gender or parental education level and that, furthermore, only 7% reported household income. So basically, the authors of the metanalysis paper did not include these variables in their model, leading to the possibility of serious confounding because, of course, SES is pretty strongly related to where you live and your level of exposure to environmental toxins, as well as to lower IQ scores.

Second is the obvious fact that the authors repeatedly mention on the first few pages that they're studying the effects of exposure to levels of fluoride higher than what is seen in public drinking water supplies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ehp.1104912.pdf

what you state is mentioned in the study and taken into account in the conclusion, it's not appropriate to condemn the study as containing "a major flaw".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you state is mentioned in the study and taken into account in the conclusion, it's not appropriate to condemn the study as containing "a major flaw".

It certainly is a serious limitation in their data, even if they acknowledge this in the conclusion and use appropriate statistical testing based on this data. In light of this, it is not appropriate to use results from such a study to argue for causation, nor is it a good idea to do so on the basis of cross-sectional data, which this meta-analysis involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a case where a husband coupled his wife by forcing her to ingest large amounts of tooth paste? Las Vegas, I think... oh wait, that was an episode of CSI. Never mind! Hehe :P

Edited by Lava_Lady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Fish, WHEN when will you be citing this claim of yours?

there are studies that show non fluoridated areas have fewer dental problems, interestingly one of the studies used to promote fluoridation showed the number of dental carries was lower in fluoridated areas, what you weren't told was that in those fluoridated areas people had fewer teeth because they had rotted and were pulled.

Either cite it or withdraw the claim. A number of folks have commented on this, yet you have chosen to ignore those comments. Is there a reason why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is a serious limitation in their data, even if they acknowledge this in the conclusion and use appropriate statistical testing based on this data. In light of this, it is not appropriate to use results from such a study to argue for causation, nor is it a good idea to do so on the basis of cross-sectional data, which this meta-analysis involved.

it depends on what the question is. evidence and proof are different things.

if you ask for evidence that fluoride reduces IQ then this review of 27 studies supports the link. if you ask for absolute proof then that is a different matter as it is difficult to provide proof with cohort studies since intentional medical experiments on people is not ethical. if I had a penny for every time someone asks for evidence then they say "that's not proof"....

this study is evidence, it supports the hypothesis that fluoridation reduces IQ.

once you mass fluoridate the water and food supply you lose any possibilty of finding a control group to comapre with. this is why the chinese studies are important because they are rural and the communities are close together yet they have different fluoride levels in their local water.

the important thing here is to ask whether fluoridation is a good idea or a bad idea. this study alone suggests its a bad idea since the reason given to fluoridate is trivial, stopping it is simple and will even save the taxpayer money. As I said before, the study is prima facie meaning the ball is now in the court of the pro-fluoridation camp to prove it is safe, or stop doing it until they can prove it safe. in the meantime, anyone who wants to take fluoride drugs can go to their pharmacy and get some. mandatory drugging of a population by the state is not something we should be doing, already corporate interests are sounding out drugging the water supply with statins "to reduce cholesterol" and with lithium "to reduce suicides", maybe the lithium battery industry will soon be dumping their waste into the drinking water. A little background, the waste product from the phosphate and aluminum industry released pollution into the air which was found to damage surrounding livestock and vegetation. they installed scrubbers which sprayed water over the poisonous gas to dissolve it. the resultant liquid waste was Hydrofluorosilicic acid - this is what is dumped in the drinking water supply, so it is not even sodium fluoride anymore. it is illegal to dump Hydrofluorosilicic acid into rivers and oceans...but they put it in the drinking water. it would be costly for those industries to dispose of that waste, but instead through legislation they turned their toxic waste into a saleable product.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense and observation is pretty good evidence.

I drank ANOTHER liter of poison water this morning. I still have enough intelligence left to access this forum and type a message, but my intellect is fading fast.... I could be a drooling idiot any moment if this keeps upplfeghwpgf9[pgolno[asbdzxfo;baszodxv.k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it depends on what the question is. evidence and proof are different things.

There is no such thing as "proof" in science or epidemiology. Threads like this demonstrate how what consitutes "proof" is very subjective.

if you ask for evidence that fluoride reduces IQ then this review of 27 studies supports the link.

The review may be used to support the belief that higher fluoride is associated with lower IQ in rural China. It does not provide evidence that higher fluoride directly or indirectly causes a reduce in IQ in China or elsewhere. The unaccounted for confounding variable of SES could be entirely responsible for this apparent link by causing lower IQ levels, and becuase it is associated with living in high fluoride areas. We can't tell this from the study because they didn't control for it in their models. And of course, you can't provide evidence for causation using cross-sectional data.

if you ask for absolute proof then that is a different matter as it is difficult to provide proof with cohort studies since intentional medical experiments on people is not ethical. if I had a penny for every time someone asks for evidence then they say "that's not proof"....

Cohort studies are not experiments; they are observational studies. Prospective (a.k.a. longitudinal) cohort studies would involve observing people with varying levels of exposure over a period of time, and then looking for incident cases of disease. A prospective cohort study on this topic might indeed pass IRB review. Purposeful administration of treatment or other exposures to a sub-set of participants would involve an experimental study, such as a randomized-controlled trial.

this study is evidence, it supports the hypothesis that fluoridation reduces IQ.

Language is very important here. You are implying causation. The article can imply nothing about causation for the aforementioned reasons.

once you mass fluoridate the water and food supply you lose any possibilty of finding a control group to comapre with. this is why the chinese studies are important because they are rural and the communities are close together yet they have different fluoride levels in their local water.

One only speaks of "control groups" in case-control studies. The term is not relevant here. A control is someone who does not have the disease under study. If you mean "unexposed", well, you wouldn't have to find people who are completely lacking exposure to fluoride. Hypothetically, you could try to find a dose-response relationship between lower and higher levels of exposure, with the lowest exposure category as your referent group. Municipal water supplies in certain cities in the U.S., such as Portland, Oregon are not fluoridated--though not for much longer.

http://www.nytimes.c...ater-by-14.html

I've no problem with the idea of using Chinese studies, as long as the data and methodology is good.

the important thing here is to ask whether fluoridation is a good idea or a bad idea. this study alone suggests its a bad idea

No it doesn't, for the reasons I've already explained.

since the reason given to fluoridate is trivial, stopping it is simple and will even save the taxpayer money.

I don't think it needs to be explained that dental decay can be very painful and cause serious cosmetic issues. Inflammation caused by gum disease has been linked to heart disease, as was evidenced in my first post in this thread. Inflammation and rotting teeth in general is not a great thing to have. Fluoridation, I believe is an important sort of safety net for ensuring protection for people who can't afford to get the care that more affluent members of society do. See the NY Times article above, for this.

I think discontinuing water fluoridation would cost tax-payers due to their having to pay for an increase in dental and related medical expenses that would ensue.

As for your last, very long paragraph, I may come back to this later.

Edited by Cybele
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such thing as "proof" in science or epidemiology. Threads like this demonstrate how what consitutes "proof" is very subjective.
that was the same point I was making. it's not an honest debate if one side demands a higher level of proof from the other and yet does not apply that same level of proof to their own arguments. the default position here is to err on the side of caution. if a plane part was suspected of being faulty they ground the planes until the issue is resolved, the same should apply with mandatory mass medicating.
The review may be used to support the belief that higher fluoride is associated with lower IQ in rural China. It does not provide evidence that higher fluoride directly or indirectly causes a reduce in IQ in China or elsewhere.
splitting hairs. the study finds correlation and is compelling because it finds the same results across dozens of studies - "the consistency of their findings adds support to existing evidence of fluoride-associated cognitive deficits". when you take into account the animal experimental studies and the in vitro studies not covered in this review which find developmental and neuron damage the case against fluoridating is compelling.
The unaccounted for confounding variable of SES could be entirely responsible for this apparent link by causing lower IQ levels, and becuase it is associated with living in high fluoride areas. We can't tell this from the study because they didn't control for it in their models. And of course, you can't provide evidence for causation using cross-sectional data.

anything could be possible, but again you seem to be demanding proof rather than evidence. the importance of the chinese studies is that they are similar isolated communities that are compared to similar and close control regions, and the same results are found across dozens of different studies, so your speculation of unknown confounding variables is unlikely.
One only speaks of "control groups" in case-control studies. The term is not relevant here. A control is someone who does not have the disease under study. If you mean "unexposed", well, you wouldn't have to find people who are completely lacking exposure to fluoride.
from the study:

Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence. Children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-exposure or control areas."

I don't think it needs to be explained that dental decay can be very painful and cause serious cosmetic issues. Inflammation caused by gum disease has been linked to heart disease, as was evidenced in my first post in this thread. Inflammation and rotting teeth in general is not a great thing to have. Fluoridation, I believe is an important sort of safety net for ensuring protection for people who can't afford to get the care that more affluent members of society do. See the NY Times article above, for this.
this study's remit concerns IQ of young children. the issues are different with young children, they have milk teeth, they get free dental care in most western countries, their brains are less protected with a weaker blood brain barrier, etc.
I think discontinuing water fluoridation would cost tax-payers due to their having to pay for an increase in dental and related medical expenses that would ensue.
WHO figures show rates of dental carries have been declining in non fluoridated countries as much, if not more than countries that fluoridate. there is no reason to believe there would be more dental problems if fluoridation stopped, could I suggest that the studies you think show water fluoridation reduces dental problems maybe "flawed" or contain "confounding variables"? maybe you should apply the same level of scrutiny to the studies funded by colgate.

"most western countries do not fluoridate their water and yet their tooth decay rates have declined at the same rate as the U.S. and other fluoridated countries. This fact, which is widely acknowledged in the dental literature, can be quickly demonstrated by examining the World Health Organization’s (WHO) data on tooth decay trends in each country. The following two figures and table..."

http://www.fluoridea...aries/who-data/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems as it's unlikely that a consensus on this issue will ever be reached. Consider the following excerpt from Wikipedia

Statements against

American biochemist Dean Burk, after his retirement, devoted himself to his opposition to water fluoridation.[31][32] According to Burk "fluoridation is a form of public mass murder."[33][34]

A 2001 study found that "fluoride, particularly in toothpastes, is a very important preventive agent against dental caries," but added that "additional fluoride to that currently available in toothpaste does not appear to be benefiting the teeth of the majority of people."[35]

The International Chiropractor's Association opposes mass water fluoridation, considering it "possibly harmful and deprivation of the rights of citizens to be free from unwelcome mass medication."[36]

In the United States, the Sierra Club opposes mandatory water fluoridation. Some reasons cited include possible adverse health effects, harm to the environment, and risks involving sensitive populations.[37]

Citing impacts on the environment, the economy and on health, the Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. The Canadian Green Party adopted in 2010 a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable.[38]

Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, opposes water fluoridation.[39][40] He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethics. He believes that it violates modern pharmacological principles, which indicate that medications should be tailored to individuals.[41]

Sociologist Brian Martin states that sociologists have typically viewed opposition to water fluoridation as irrational, although critics of this position have argued that this rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.[2]

Neutral statement

On 15 April 2008, the United States National Kidney Foundation (NKF) updated their position on fluoridation for the first time since 1981.[42] Formerly an endorser of water fluoridation, the group is now neutral on the practice. The report states, "Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the report in brief of the NRC and the Kidney Health Australia position paper."[15][43][44] Calling for additional research, the foundation's 2008 position paper states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend fluoride-free drinking water for patients with renal disease.[45]

Statements for

The fluoridation of public water has been hailed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control as one of the top medical achievements of the 20th century.[46] It is ranked No. 9 on this list ahead of "Recognition of tobacco use as a health hazard."[47]

The American Dental Association calls water fluoridation "unquestionably one of the safest and most beneficial, cost-effective public health measures for preventing, controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay."[48]

Health Canada supports fluoridation, citing a number of international scientific reviews that indicate "there is no link between any adverse health effects and exposure to fluoride in drinking water at levels that are below the maximum acceptable concentration of 1.5 mg/L."[49]

The World Health Organization says fluoridation is an effective way to prevent tooth decay in poor communities. "In some developed countries, the health and economic benefits of fluoridation may be small, but particularly important in deprived areas, where water fluoridation may be a key factor in reducing inequalities in dental health."[50]

A 2008 meta-analysis of published research into fluoride's effect on osteoporosis found that daily doses of up to 20 mg fluoride significantly increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture risk.[51]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was the same point I was making. it's not an honest debate if one side demands a higher level of proof from the other and yet does not apply that same level of proof to their own arguments. the default position here is to err on the side of caution. if a plane part was suspected of being faulty they ground the planes until the issue is resolved, the same should apply with mandatory mass medicating.

I would replace the word “proof” above with evidence. I don’t believe there is such a thing as proof.

With any public health measure, you have to weigh costs versus benefits. In principle, one doesn’t eliminate a measure that does a whole lot of good, saves many millions of lives, just because one or two people die or there are small rates of adverse reactions. A leading cause of death in this country is nosocomial, hospital-acquired infections, but most would not seriously advocate that people avoid hospitals when they need urgent care, just because they might get a hospital-acquired infection.

The idea of a plane being faulty is not a good analogy to your argument against fluoride or “mass medicating”. A more appropriate analogy, in my opinion, would be: “There is a small risk of airplanes crashing, killing all passengers on board, every time people fly. Therefore, people should not fly on airplanes because of this risk”. This ignores any potential benefits, and the probability of the risks versus the probability of the benefits.

I understand the discomfort with the idea of a public health measure being mandatory. You have a right to question any small risks such measures would pose. I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence that risks from fluoridation, at present levels, are high.

splitting hairs. the study finds correlation and is compelling because it finds the same results across dozens of studies - "the consistency of their findings adds support to existing evidence of fluoride-associated cognitive deficits".

They used the word “associated”, you did not. The difference is significant.

Consider, as an analogy, a study that wants to examine whether alcohol consumption is related to an increased risk for lung cancer. However, because of poor data collection processes, no information was collected on smoking status of participants.

Alcohol consumption is associated with smoking in the population in general. Smoking is known to cause lung cancer. The authors find a significant association between alcohol consumption and lung cancer.

Is this association causal? Does drinking cause lung cancer? Well, in reality, this association may be entirely explained by the fact that heavy drinkers are also heavy smokers. You can imagine how alcohol may be related to lung cancer across many studies, even if it doesn’t actually directly or indirectly cause it, but is merely associated with it because it correlates with smoking

If you have no information on confounders, and don’t control for them, you get a very unclear picture of anything beyond mere associations, which can be misleading. Correlation does not equal causation, for the reasons above.

anything could be possible, but again you seem to be demanding proof rather than evidence.

I’m saying that the evidence isn’t saying what you claim it’s saying.

the importance of the chinese studies is that they are similar isolated communities that are compared to similar and close control regions, and the same results are found across dozens of different studies, so your speculation of unknown confounding variables is unlikely.

So they’re all poor? I’d have to look at these studies directly. SES isn’t an unknown; it is something they just didn’t have the data on.

when you take into account the animal experimental studies and the in vitro studies not covered in this review which find developmental and neuron damage the case against fluoridating is compelling.

What I saw in that article was that rat cells have been directly injected with fluoride levels 20, 40, and 80 times higher than the limits imposed on public drinking water. As was discussed earlier, things that are beneficial at lower levels can become toxic at higher levels.

There’s also the issue of extrapolating data from in vitro studies. Biological mechanisms in a whole organism are more complex. Fluoride levels at the concentrations above, if ingested, would almost certainly not reach such levels of concentration in individual cells.

For a biological organism to survive, these myriad components must interact with each other and with their environment in a way that processes food, removes waste, moves components to the correct location, and is responsive to signalling molecules, other organisms, light, sound, temperature and many other factors.

The primary disadvantage of in vitro experimental studies is that it can sometimes be very challenging to extrapolate from the results of in vitro work back to the biology of the intact organism. Investigators doing in vitro work must be careful to avoid over-interpretation of their results, which can sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions about organismal and systems biology. [6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro

WHO figures show rates of dental carries have been declining in non fluoridated countries as much, if not more than countries that fluoridate. there is no reason to believe there would be more dental problems if fluoridation stopped, could I suggest that the studies you think show water fluoridation reduces dental problems maybe "flawed" or contain "confounding variables"? maybe you should apply the same level of scrutiny to the studies funded by colgate.

"most western countries do not fluoridate their water and yet their tooth decay rates have declined at the same rate as the U.S. and other fluoridated countries. This fact, which is widely acknowledged in the dental literature, can be quickly demonstrated by examining the World Health Organization’s (WHO) data on tooth decay trends in each country. The following two figures and table..."

http://www.fluoridea...aries/who-data/

If you give me studies funded by Colgate, I can scrutinize them as well. It’s what’s done in science. That's why there's peer-review and authors must include a limitations section at the end of their paper. I've no agenda beyond picking apart arguments and interpretations I deem flawed.

I’m aware. I actually mentioned this earlier. As I said, I believe the U.S. uses water fluoridation to reduce health disparities. We have greater disparities between rich and poor in this country in terms of education and health, than many nations in Europe.

Most countries in Europe don’t fluoridate their water, but some use fluoridated salt.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_by_country

In the future, please link to source data, rather than politically-motivated sites like "Fluoride Alert".

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would replace the word “proof” above with evidence. I don’t believe there is such a thing as proof.
so in your view it's not proven that smoking causes cancer?

you are trying to find disagreement where there is none on this point.

With any public health measure, you have to weigh costs versus benefits. In principle, one doesn’t eliminate a measure that does a whole lot of good, saves many millions of lives, just because one or two people die or there are small rates of adverse reactions.
Fluoridation does not "save millions of lives", it pretends to better ones teeth, a point which is disputed by the dental literature and WHO data. I'm happy for you to frame this as risk vs benefit, but surely you acknowledge your own exaggeration in quantifying the benefit, I would also state you have handwaved the risks which are diverse and serious.
A leading cause of death in this country is nosocomial, hospital-acquired infections, but most would not seriously advocate that people avoid hospitals when they need urgent care, just because they might get a hospital-acquired infection.

this analogy is unnecessary and backwards. the benefits from fluoridation are at best minimal and the risks possibly terminal or chronic.

The idea of a plane being faulty is not a good analogy to your argument against fluoride or “mass medicating”. A more appropriate analogy, in my opinion, would be: “There is a small risk of airplanes crashing, killing all passengers on board, every time people fly. Therefore, people should not fly on airplanes because of this risk”.
it's not a better analogy since if a person wants to fly in a plane they can fly in a plane, and if they don't want to fly in a plane they don't have to. Fluoridation forces everyone to fly on planes that may have dodgy engines. if you want to take fluoride "for your teeth" then go ahead, but don't force everyone to, besides only 1% of that water ends up in your body (fluoride benefit is said to be topical, not from ingestion), the other 99% ends up down the drain and into the environment, its an extremely inefficient and stupid way of getting the drug onto your teeth.
I understand the discomfort with the idea of a public health measure being mandatory. You have a right to question any small risks such measures would pose.
you mistate my rights, I have a right to decide what goes in my body. its called the informed consent principle of medicine - it requires my consent. Fluoridation tramples over that principle. as I mentioned before, would you consent to lithium being dumped in everyone's tap water as well? that's what is being pushed.

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence that risks from fluoridation, at present levels, are high.
and as you know by now, I believe the opposite.

the solution for both of us then would be to stop fluoridation, you can go buy your fluoride tablets for pennies from your pharmacy (or more likely your local aluminium or phosphate plant will give them to you for free since it would be very costly for them to dispose of their toxic waste and illegal for them to dump it it landfill or the local lake) and you can enjoy a tax cut with the savings, and I can have the fluoride free water, so we are both happy, but what you are doing in protecting the status quo is mandating your belief onto me.

They used the word “associated”, you did not. The difference is significant.

Consider, as an analogy, a study that wants to examine whether alcohol consumption is related to an increased risk for lung cancer. However, because of poor data collection processes, no information was collected on smoking status of participants.

Alcohol consumption is associated with smoking in the population in general. Smoking is known to cause lung cancer. The authors find a significant association between alcohol consumption and lung cancer.

Is this association causal? Does drinking cause lung cancer? Well, in reality, this association may be entirely explained by the fact that heavy drinkers are also heavy smokers. You can imagine how alcohol may be related to lung cancer across many studies, even if it doesn’t actually directly or indirectly cause it, but is merely associated with it because it correlates with smoking

I understand the point regarding possible confounders, but as i said the wide ranging different studies from different regions all show an association of lower iq in children drinking higher levels of fluoride. there are no obvious confounders, coupled with Philis Mullinex's rat studies (which used the equivalent of fluoridated levels) and in vitro studies all point to the same thing, that Fluoride has a detrimental effect on brain function.
I’m saying that the evidence isn’t saying what you claim it’s saying.
I'm curious what you think I claim the evidence is saying. I'm saying what the evidence is saying. I'm also curious what level of "evidence" would reverse your position on fluoridation. is it ok if a few kids get cancer, or on average lose a few IQ points? or do you hold the position there are no risks at all, and any evidence of adverse risk would be enough to change your position?
What I saw in that article was that rat cells have been directly injected with fluoride levels 20, 40, and 80 times higher than the limits imposed on public drinking water. As was discussed earlier, things that are beneficial at lower levels can become toxic at higher levels.
that particular in vitro study was to determine which brain cells fluoride targetted, it was not to determine the level of safety, but to find out specific areas affected. it is known that fluoride targets specific regions of the brain, in particular the pineal gland causing calcification, leading to sleep disorders, depression, and other disorders associated with low melatonin.
There’s also the issue of extrapolating data from in vitro studies. Biological mechanisms in a whole organism are more complex. Fluoride levels at the concentrations above, if ingested, would almost certainly not reach such levels of concentration in individual cells.

For a biological organism to survive, these myriad components must interact with each other and with their environment in a way that processes food, removes waste, moves components to the correct location, and is responsive to signalling molecules, other organisms, light, sound, temperature and many other factors.

The primary disadvantage of in vitro experimental studies is that it can sometimes be very challenging to extrapolate from the results of in vitro work back to the biology of the intact organism. Investigators doing in vitro work must be careful to avoid over-interpretation of their results, which can sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions about organismal and systems biology. [6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro

it's a cumulative argument, all areas studies point to the same thing. again what you seem to be doing is demanding proof of each piece in isolation rather than drawing a conclusion from the whole of the evidence. any one of these issues in isolation so far mentioned should be enough to halt fluoridation until proven safe, as far as dose goes, fluoride is synergistic with aluminum which means the effects of fluoride when combined with aluminum are much greater than their sum, which means even if you know the dose of fluoride you are getting (you don't) but even if you do, you do not know the effect that dose will have because it will be multiplied when you are exposed to aluminum, something not factored into any of the studies. fluoridation with hydroflurosilicic acid also brings in other toxins with it specifically arsenic, lead and uranium. you can find all this information in the scientific literature although if you refuse to go to fluoridealert.com you'll probably never find it.
If you give me studies funded by Colgate, I can scrutinize them as well. It’s what’s done in science. That's why there's peer-review and authors must include a limitations section at the end of their paper. I've no agenda beyond picking apart arguments and interpretations I deem flawed.
watch the video at the end of this post. he mentions a study where every data point indicating cancer risk was systematically downgraded, a statistical impossibilty, in order to support fluoridation, colgate paid the scientistt that did that.
In the future, please link to source data, rather than politically-motivated sites like "Fluoride Alert".

do you think that website is run by a masked black clad anarchist with a rucksack holding a petrol bomb, or a reputable scientist with 30 years of experience as a government agency scientist? the source to the data is what I said and specified within the article, enough information for you to do your own checking.

[media=]

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this analogy is unnecessary and backwards. the benefits from fluoridation are at best minimal and the risks possibly terminal or chronic.

It has been in use since 1850, and the benefits have been documented, with such a long history it should not be to hard to provide definite examples of death and chronic sickness caused directly by water fluoridation? Best that has been presented on this debate is a paper that seems very short on data presented by the anti fluoridation board. What would one expect them to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unholy_three_cropped.png

Illustration in

a 1955 flier by the Keep America Committee, alleging that fluoridation was a Communist plot.

170px-H-Trendley-Dean.jpeg

H. Trendley Dean set out in 1931 to study fluoride's harm, but by 1950 had demonstrated the cavity-prevention effects of small amounts

LINK

Things do not seem to have changed an awful lot.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so in your view it's not proven that smoking causes cancer?

This is too vague a question for me to answer briefly. Even with cancers where the association is extremely strong, such as lung cancer, not all people who smoke get lung cancer, and not all people with lung cancer were exposed to smoking in their life.

In any single case of disease, you can never definitively say what caused the disease (and it’s almost never just one cause). On a population level, there are many factors which interact to increase the risk of cancer. The evidence that smoking independently increases the risk of lung

cancer is very strong. The evidence that smoking increases the risk of all sorts of other unpleasant things is fairly strong.

Fluoridation does not "save millions of lives", it pretends to better ones teeth, a point which is disputed by the dental literature and WHO data. I'm happy for you to frame this as risk vs benefit, but surely you acknowledge your own exaggeration in quantifying the benefit, I would also state you have handwaved the risks which are diverse and serious.

Note that I never said that fluoride has “saved millions of lives”. You also made a general comment about “mass-medication”. Other mandated public health measures, such as vaccination, have and continue to save millions of lives.

you mistate my rights, I have a right to decide what goes in my body. its called the informed consent principle of medicine - it requires my consent. Fluoridation tramples over that principle. as I mentioned before, would you consent to lithium being dumped in everyone's tap water as well? that's what is being pushed.

Ah, but Little Fish, the informed consent process relates to medicine and participation in research studies. Public health is not medicine, and paternalism is sometimes deemed justified in public health activities.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.

http://en.wikipedia....._Massachusetts

The United States Constitution does not grant any general police power to the federal government. Thus, that power – the power to make laws providing for the protection of the health, welfare, and morals of the public – is inherently reserved to the states.

http://biotech.law.l...olicePower.html

Obviously choosing not to drink fluoridated water does not endanger the health of others as refusing a smallpox vaccination would. The point I’m trying to make here is that your rights with regard to individual medicine are not equivalent to your rights to with regard to public health measures. I know you disagree with this idea in principle, but it is a fact.

You can, of course, choose to purchase and drink water which you have determined contains no (or negligible levels) of fluoride. However, many would argue that you as an individual do not get to decide the measures taken to promote health in society at large. Such a change in policy would probably require overwhelming scientific evidence and/or public support for banning fluoride use in municipal water supplies.

the solution for both of us then would be to stop fluoridation, you can go buy your fluoride tablets for pennies from your pharmacy (or more likely your local aluminium or phosphate plant will give them to you for free since it would be very costly for them to dispose of their toxic waste and illegal for them to dump it it landfill or the local lake) and you can enjoy a tax cut with the savings, and I can have the fluoride free water, so we are both happy, but what you are doing in protecting the status quo is mandating your belief onto me.

Right, and if water were no longer fluoridated, you would be “mandating your belief onto me” as well. You can go out and buy fluoride-free water, just as I could go out and buy fluoridated toothpastes and tablets. You claim that removing fluoride will be the safe thing to do, I think it will primarily put peoples’ dental health at risk (though I'm open-minded as to the possibility of risks as well).

I understand the point regarding possible confounders, but as i said the wide ranging different studies from different regions all show an association of lower iq in children drinking higher levels of fluoride. there are no obvious confounders, coupled with Philis Mullinex's rat studies (which used the equivalent of fluoridated levels) and in vitro studies all point to the same thing, that Fluoride has a detrimental effect on brain function.

So you claim, but continue to not demonstrate. It’s one thing to look at one or two studies, but to really form an informed opinion, I would have to look over dozens (if not hundreds) of individual studies and meta-analyses. One doesn’t make a firm conclusion on the basis of a single, or even series, of individual studies or metanalyses. I don’t have the time to do that at this point, so I can only critique what you’ve offered.

I'm curious what you think I claim the evidence is saying. I'm saying what the evidence is saying. I'm also curious what level of "evidence" would reverse your position on fluoridation. is it ok if a few kids get cancer, or on average lose a few IQ points? or do you hold the position there are no risks at all, and any evidence of adverse risk would be enough to change your position?

See above. In an earlier post of mine, you will note that I said everything in life comes with risks. You have to weigh risks versus benefits, and if the benefits significantly outweigh the risks, then a measure is probably worth taking.

it's a cumulative argument, all areas studies point to the same thing. again what you seem to be doing is demanding proof of each piece in isolation rather than drawing a conclusion from the whole of the evidence.

If they all point to the idea of fluoride causing damage at high levels when injected directly into cells, that is not exactly generalizable to water fluoridation. Studies can be consistent but not really relevant to a public health issue because method of delivery and dose—and hence the results--are dramatically different between the two.

as far as dose goes, fluoride is synergistic with aluminum which means the effects of fluoride when combined with aluminum are much greater than their sum, which means even if you know the dose of fluoride you are getting (you don't) but even if you do, you do not know the effect that dose will have because it will be multiplied when you are exposed to aluminum, something not factored into any of the studies. fluoridation with hydroflurosilicic acid also brings in other toxins with it specifically arsenic, lead and uranium. you can find all this information in the scientific literature although if you refuse to go to fluoridealert.com you'll probably never find it.

That’s probably not a good sign as to the quality of fluoridealert.

Surely if this were a major issue, such news would be all over other media outlets? Please link me to such studies, if you are able. There are limits set on fluoride concentrations allowed in municipal drinking water, as you and I both mentioned earlier.

What I did see when I went to fluoride-alert was source data posted out of context. For example, the site links to an EPA bulletin which classifies “fluoride” as a developmental neurotoxicant. The actually EPA document does not specify the type of fluoride (whether it is even the same type as is used in drinking water) or anything about dosages, which is very, very important. I prefer to obtain this sort of information outside of the context of a website that puts such an obvious spin on things.

it's watch the video at the end of this post. he mentions a study where every data point indicating cancer risk was systematically downgraded, a statistical impossibilty, in order to support fluoridation, colgate paid the scientistt that did that.

Are you expecting me to deny that conflicts of interest and falsification of data occur in science? They do, of course. It is important to take into consideration how much weight such studies carry. Surely, since the study took place in 1977, there has most likely been plenty of research since then.

The speaker in your video sounds like he makes a good point, but of course it is one-sided and picks out information that supports his position, without citing studies that don’t (i.e.- reviewing the totality of the evidence). If his points and concerns are valid, I support the idea of further studies and revisiting policies, but not something as drastic as immediate cessation of fluoridation.

do you think that website is run by a masked black clad anarchist with a rucksack holding a petrol bomb, or a reputable scientist with 30 years of experience as a government agency scientist? the source to the data is what I said and specified within the article, enough information for you to do your own checking.

A person’s prior reputation has no bearing on the truth of their claims.

Edited by Cybele
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.