I have largely sat back on the issue of fluoridation in Davis’ drinking water, largely because I’m rather indifferent to the issue. However, when Supervisor Matt Rexroad tweeted yesterday, “It seems that people that oppose fluoridation are likely to have several cats,” I thought it was time to chime in, at least a little bit.
There is a decent article in the Woodland paper this morning, “Fluoridation could be part of Woodland-Davis water project.”
In it they quote Dr. Michael Wilkes, who chairs the Yolo County Health Council and is a professor at the UC Davis School of Medicine, “Pain, malnutrition, lost days of school and work, and economic loss are a few implications of poor dental health.”
“While there is still much medicine does not understand, water fluoridation is not one of them,” he said.
In fact, about two-thirds of all drinking water in the US is fluoridated.
“This started over 60 years ago, and in that time public water fluoridation has significantly reduced tooth decay,” Professor Wilkes said. “Surely, in that time, given the attention focused on this problem, we would have learned if there were to be any risks or harms to the community.”
Contrary to the implications of Matt Rexroad’s tweet, the anti-fluoridation campaign began not with crunchy granola Davisites, but rather with the right-wing group, the John Birch Society. They called the fluoridation campaign “mass medicine” and saw it as a communist plot to poison Americans.
It is interesting to note that the opposition we see on the Vanguard is coming as much from the right wing, in that vein, as it is from the left-wing. It is couched as a choice, the choice that people have whether or not to have fluoride added to drinking water.
Despite my fence-sitting on this issue, I’m unmoved by the choice issue. I don’t see this as a medication per se. I see it more akin to added chlorination to the drinking water – you are adding a chemical for a purpose. If people would prefer not to ingest that chemical they have alternatives.
People have the choice whether to drink the tap water or purchase their water elsewhere. It is fairly inexpensive to buy water by the gallon at a grocery store.
The choice is not taken away from people, they are not being forced to ingest fluoride, but the choice is being constrained.
So, for me the issue of choice is a non-starter. The bigger issue is (a) whether fluoride in the drinking water has benefits and (b) whether it produces harm.
The first thing I will note, as I did at one point: simply posting a bunch of studies here is not going to work very well. It is easy to find contrary studies. Some studies show high risk, others show no risk.
A Huffington Post article carried the headline, “Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ.”
They write, “A recently-published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have ‘significantly lower’ IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.”
But that actually overstates the findings. The study actually doesn’t confirm anything. It simply finds: “In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.”
Somehow we go to “confirm” from “our results support the possibility.”
Moreover, as a former social scientist I’m hesitant to draw conclusions from a meta-analysis, which is not, in fact, original research so much as the measurement of all known research which is used to support one conclusion or another.
The study argued, “Adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory …“
That is a lot of “mays” and as one reader noted, it is somewhat surprising that the study was conducted in 2006 and in the time that has passed there has been little effort to determine whether these concerns were confirmed.
The other point to note here is what does “high fluoride concentrations in drinking water” mean? For example, “EPA has set an enforceable regulation for fluoride, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm. MCLs are set as close to the health goals as possible, considering cost, benefits and the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies.”
The EPA adds, “Fluoride is voluntarily added to some drinking water systems as a public health measure for reducing the incidence of cavities among the treated population. The decision to fluoridate a water supply is made by the State or local municipality, and is not mandated by EPA or any other Federal entity.”
The EPA sets the maximum limit, but “States may set more stringent drinking water MCLGs and MCLs for fluoride than EPA.”
Nowhere in this literature, however, that I could find does it make clear whether the current limits are significantly low to avoid the problems that some of the studies indicated may occur with high fluoride exposure.
While some have questioned why there have not been follow-up studies, other have suggested that fluoridation “simply has not made much of a dent in the scientific community because there simply is not much there.”
They point out, “One way to measure the impact of a field of research is to look at research funding. I couldn’t find a single reference for how much money has been spent on fluoridation research. Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t research or it shouldn’t be done, but it is one indication of the importance the scientific community puts on this area of research.”
Professor Wilkes believes that the levels being used are not a problem.
“Despite cries from alarmists and suggestions of conspiracy theories, when used at the recommended levels of 0.7 parts per million there are no harms, dangers or side effects,” said Dr. Wilkes. “While significantly higher doses can cause problems, we know that higher doses of other lifesaving drugs like aspirin, antibiotics, and even oxygen can also cause problems. So, care is taken to monitor doses to assure they are safe. This is easily done for fluoride.”
To take this a step further, if indeed two-thirds of water is fluoridated, and the problem is as pervasive as some suggest, there should be notable studies that show impacts on health, mental functions, etc. Instead, most of the studies, at least in the mainstream press, only appear to theoretically link the impact of fluoride to harmful impacts.
So, while I remain open to convinced, I still do not see any glaring issues. Given nearly 50 years of exposure to fluoridated water, we should have some actual evidence of impact and I see no studies that show the widespread impact of fluoridation on health.
To sum up this commentary, I have no position on whether there should or should not be fluoridated water. However, I think the choice issue is a non-starter, and the health impacts are largely unproven.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“This started over 60 years ago, and in that time public water fluoridation has significantly reduced tooth decay,” Professor Wilkes said. “Surely, in that time, given the attention focused on this problem, we would have learned if there were to be any risks or harms to the community.”
AND – in those 60 years other factors probably contributed to reduced tooth decay; advances in dentistry, better dental education, and topical fluoride applications in infants and toddlers – just to name a few
What will it cost us to fluoridate our water supply? – and could that money be better spent tackling other problems?
[i]”Despite my fence-sitting on this issue, I’m unmoved by the choice issue. I don’t see this as a medication per se. I see it more akin to added chlorination to the drinking water – you are adding a chemical for a purpose.[/i]
I think you are just failing to accept the difference. It is a profound difference. Chorine is added to the water for the purpose of the water. Fluoride is added to the water for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED purpose.
Fluoride is defined as a drug by the FDA. The benefits of fluoride the drug have been wildly exaggerated and the risks have been downplayed.
No drug benefits 100% of people, and all drugs have the potential to harm.
The government requires a toxic substance fluoride warning label on toothpaste.
It is immoral to force-medicate an entire population. Convenience is not a justification. There are other, more appropriate methods in a modern time, to educate people on the benefits and risks for fluoride and provide them access to the drug if they chose.
Beta carotene is supposed to be good for eyesight, so why don’t we add that to the public water system too? Are not eyes just as important as teeth?
Just because we have done it for 60 years, and 60% of the water supply has fluoride added does not mean it is the right thing to do (sounds like a liberal progressive argument, doesn’t it?).
You simply cannot defend the practice of putting the fluoride drug in our public water system without also accepting responsibility for being one of the following: uninformed, stubbornly statist or Orwellian.
What if science eventually recognizes and admits that there are risks that support banning the practice, and people having been harmed by long-term ingestion of fluoride in their drinking water sue their local government for damage?
Bottled water is expensive in real dollars and the cost of time to acquire and transport. It is also very heavy. How will disabled people and weak people acquire and transport bottled water?
A reasonable question. Answer is 38 cents per customer per month in West Sac, $1.20 in Sac (that seems like a lot). Could that money be better spent tackling other problems? Perhaps, but not under the present structure of where that money comes from.
“Chorine is added to the water for the purpose of the water. Fluoride is added to the water for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED purpose.”
To me it’s a difference without a distinction. You have simply determined that in your view, one justification is legitimate and the other isn’t.
[i]”To me it’s a difference without a distinction. You have simply determined that in your view, one justification is legitimate and the other isn’t.[/i]
There is a big distinction. You just chose to ignore it.
@Frankly: How are you being forced, or how would you be forced to drink it? Just don’t drink it if it’s in the water. Bottled water is very inexpensive. Problem solved.
[i]It is immoral to force-medicate an entire population.[/i]
The premise of fluoridation is the same as that behind requiring that flour be enriched (is in every flour product you eat, unless you carefully seek out alternatives) and the former practice of adding iodine to all table salt (people who do home canning often buy kosher salt to avoid the discoloration caused by iodized salt).
Per Wikipedia: “According to the FDA, a pound of enriched flour must have the following quantities of nutrients to qualify: 2.9 milligrams of thiamin, 1.8 milligrams of riboflavin, 24 milligrams of niacin, 0.7 milligrams of folic acid, and 20 milligrams of iron.”
There is only one public water system. There is only one water service coming into my house. If I am out of bottled water and I am thirsty, I would be forced to drink tap water containing fluoride.
There are plenty of alternative flour choices that are natural and lack additives.
There are plenty of salt choices too.
However, neither of these are piped into our homes and delivered by a single public delivery system.
So how does a weak person transport water from the grocery store to their home? What about seniors that live in a facility that does not offer bottled water? What about kids at school?
Yes, people will be force-medicated. Ya’ll know this, you are just chose to ignore the inconvenience of it to prop up your position.
“You just chose to ignore it.”
No, I didn’t ignore it. I just don’t share your view that the distinction matters.
@Frankly: You seem to be ignoring that fact that water systems are operated by city municipalities, which are (or should be) democratic institutions. When people live in close proximity to each other then they need to make joint decisions on certain issues. Inevitably, some people will disagree with the decisions made, but in a democracy we have to compromise. If you want the benefits of living in a densely populated area, then you’re going to have to compromise on some issues. It’s as simple as that.
[i]So how does a weak person transport water from the grocery store to their home?[/i]
You know you can get water delivered, right?
[i]There are plenty of alternative flour choices that are natural and lack additives. [/i]
Practically every processed flour-containing product you buy is enriched.
This is amazing to me that you even consider this an issue. Do you buy milk that hasn’t been fortified because you don’t want to be “force-medicated”?
Don: How does the low income parent trying to follow the CDC recommendation not to use fluoridated water to mix baby formula afford the delivered water? (Do you have any single Lemon Boy plants in stock?)
[quote]Given nearly 50 years of exposure to fluoridated water, we should have some actual evidence of impact and I see no studies that show the widespread impact of fluoridation on health.[/quote]
Perhaps the good doctor does not see because he has his eyes closed. The CDC has recently stated that mild to severe fluorosis among 12-15 year old teenagers is approximately 41% now! It has been on a straight line increase for decades lock step in-line with increasing use of fluoridated water.
References:
1) Beltrán-Aguilar ED, et al. (2010). Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999–2004. Centers for Disease Control. NCHS Data Brief No. 53.
2) National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC
Dave wrote “$1.20 in Sac (that seems like a lot).”
Sacramento, which uses both surface and ground water, has seen a large increase in the costs of fluoridation since they started fluoridating in around 2000 or so. They have had problems with equipment corrosion, clogged pumps, sourcing and chemical quality problems with the sodium fluoride they use in the well water, etc. See the July 1, 2010 City of Sacramento memo available as a pdf at the bottom of this page. http://fluoridefreesacramento.org/html/budget_for.html
The memo states in part that, “The City of Sacramento has been fluoridating its water supply for just over 10 years. Within that time, the actual cost of operating and maintaining the fluoridation systems has proven to be considerably more that the initial estimate of $350,000 per year.”
A table further down in the memo shows fluoridation costing $858,600 in 2008/2009, a projected cost of $898,750 in 2009/2010, and a projected cost of $933,660 in 2010/2011. The 2012 projected cost of $1,421,020 includes $450,000 equipment for equipment replacement.
If I am correct in my understanding that Davis’s water system will also use a combination of surface water and ground water (from 6 deep aquifer wells) during varying parts of the year, then Sacramento’s cost and quality issues could be a good indicator of the practical issues and costs of fluoridation that Davis could face if it fluoridates city water, too.
David; could you please share your sources for the monthly costs of fluoridation in Sacramento and West Sacramento? Thanks.
” The CDC has recently stated that mild to severe fluorosis among 12-15 year old teenagers is approximately 41% [b]now[/b]! “
“1) Beltrán-Aguilar ED, et al. (2010). Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, [b]1999–2004[/b]. Centers for Disease Control. NCHS Data Brief No. 53.
2) National Research Council. [b](1993)[/b]. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC “
So you have a statement that these incident are “now” x-percent, but you are citing a 20 year old study and data that’s at least a decade old.
[quote]David; could you please share your sources for the monthly costs of fluoridation in Sacramento and West Sacramento? Thanks. [/quote]
It was in the Daily democrat article linked above.
The sad irony to me of fluoridation is that one of the main selling points of the whole surface water project is that we will all be able to just drink tap water after the water is running and the poor folks won’t have to drink tap water while only the rich folks can afford bottled water. Yet with fluoridation, the situation will be reversed and the burden of buying bottled water to protect their babies health will be on poor families with young children. This is because numerous studies have proven the causal adverse affects of fluoride in drinking water such that the CDC and ADA now both recommend AGAINST using fluoridated water to mix any powdered baby formula (which is much lower cost than premixed formula). How do fluoridation proponents propose we provide them with the means to have bottled water delivered?
References
“All health professionals should understand the risks of preparing infant formulas with optimally fluoridated water and give precise recommendations to their patients. Additionally, this information should be emphasized in public health policies.” Buzalaf M, et al. (2004). Risk of Fluorosis Associated With Infant Formulas Prepared With Bottled Water.Journal of Dentistry for Children 71:110-113.
“Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride (which may increase their risk of enamel fluorosis) if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride… If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.”
American Dental Association (2006). Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula. November 9, 2006.
Fluoridation is also a major Social Justice because low-income families are at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. This is because it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council’s review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water.” Indeed, African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US.
References
Beltran-Aguilar ED et al. (2005). Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis — United States, 1988–1994 and 1999—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 54(3): 1-44.
Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to malnutrition. JADA. 44: 156-165.
[quote]So you have a statement that these incident are “now” x-percent, but you are citing a 20 year old study and data that’s at least a decade old. [/quote]
The older study shows what fluorosis rates used to be and was used to justify my statement that fluorisis rates are increasing. The more recent study was released 3 years ago using data that was finalized in 2004. The CDC’s report was issued the year after. Point taken, though. I should have used the word “recent” instead of the word “now”. However, this distinction still does not change the inexorable rise in fluorosis seen as floridation of drinking water increases. Perhaps if you still believe the fluoride is harmless you can come up more recent, peer-reviewed epidemiological data yourself instead of just parroting self-serving statements by fluoridation proponents found in the local newspapers. These are not exactly reputable sources of scientific research information.
Full disclosure to Matt Rexroad and David: I own–and love–a cat. Just one, and I have a dog also, so maybe my commentary will be considered somewhat more balanced than that of a person who owns multiple cats, with or without a dog in the home…?
The fluoride in the water issue is, from a health and nutrition standpoint, much more complicated than the pro-fluoride folks would lead us to believe, or perhaps even realize (to give the benefit of the doubt.) To take just one aspect from a nutritional standpoint, when you isolate fluoride at whatever ppm it will be added to the water and examine its effects on, say, a five year-old child, it may seem entirely innocuous and a logical conclusion reached might me, no harm could possibly come from it. But fluoride is a chemical grouped in the same subset as bromide/bromine–found in most of our processed breads and pastries, chloride/chlorine, already in our water and iodine/iodide an essential nutrient. Fluoride, bromide and chloride are all mildly-to-very toxic in the body ,depending on the dose of course–especially to developing fetuses and babies. They all uptake in the same way in the body. Perhaps when each is taken one at a time, piece of bread here, a sip of water there, the dose is not harmful, But the more they combine–in our food in our water in our bodies, the more toxic they become together and the higher the dose ingested. And they crowd out iodine,the one “-ide” in this set which is not harmful but rather essential to the body and which most people in the USA are already deficient in. The body uptakes fluoride, bromide, chloride, daily, and there is no room for the actual nutrient, iodine/iodide in the subset to be taken into the body’s cells. The total dose of these mildly toxic “-ides” can become, when combined, damaging. And it is hard to measure the damage and disease caused today by a lack of iodine in our diets, but it is probably a substantial cause underlying the breast and thyroid cancer epidemics we see happening today.
I garden. And maybe Don Shor could address this concern. But if my water is fluoridated, I will have no choice but to add fluoride by way of watering my garden to the food we are raising. I do not know how much of the fluoride my soil and plants will uptake and retain, adding to the total dosage of fluoride/fluorine; bromide/bromine; chloride/chorine my family will ingest. People who tell you that medicine understands fluoride very well may not being lying to you, but they are simplifying to a deceptive degree.
These are just a few of the points I could make about fluoride and how the dosage of the “-ides” become compounded and I have not even addressed the fact that other chemicals, some from other medications people have disposed of in their homes may be in some ppm in our water supply interacting together in unknown and untraceable ways. So. I am for the purest possible water for my children and family and I am for better dental health care through other interventions that don’t further pollute our water supply. Here’s a good video from a Dentist in Portland (I don’t know how many cats he owns…)that I recommend, to spark further thoughts and discussion.
“Fluoride 101” again from Portland. The debate on childrens’s health and fluoride:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30umO7s4Zj0
If all levels of fluoride in the drinking water were toxic, surely the opponents of fluoridation would be fighting for the removal of the current levels in our drinking water. I do not believe that anyone believes this is the case.
So what is essentially being argued here is how much should be in the water and how should it get there. I have yet, after an extensive current literature review found any evidence that there is any harm ( including significant fluorosis) at the level being proposed for our water supply. The opponents have two basic arguments.
1) Toxicity – this has not been demonstrated and with there is significant evidence from over 60 years of
experience that there are no adverse effects at this level. The opponents are claiming it is up to the
proponents to prove their is no harm. They are well aware that there is no way to prove that any substance
will never be harmful to anyone. If this were the criteria used, we would have no medicines at all, nor would
we have any supplements, any vitamins, any immunizations.The opponents do not acknowledge that no one
is forced to drink the water or purchase fluoride supplemented products. Nor do they acknowledge that many
in our community do not have ready access to dental care.
2) Forced medication – as has been stated over and over, there is no force involved. For those who are concerned about drinking too much fluoride, all you would have to do is to drink approximately 1/2 of the tap water that you are now drinking in order to get the roughly the same peak amount as you are now consuming.
So why is no one clamoring for filtering or diluting out this toxin from our current water supply. I suspect that this is because no one truly believes it is dangerous. There is no moral high ground here, simply a difference of opinion about the best strategy for providing optimal levels of fluoride to the majority of our population.
Let the people vote. And let’s have, if we can, an informed, fact-based discussion based on all available, significant data.
I must counter David’s advocacy for bottled water. I would not support a solution to fluoride that increases the mining spring water from distant watersheds or taping into municipal water for resale which further commodifies water for corporate profit and uses non-renewable petroleum resources for plastic bottles.
[quote]Let the people vote. And let’s have, if we can, an informed, fact-based discussion based on all available, significant data.[/quote]
Do you favor a direct vote on all controversial issues in Davis ? That would certainly be a different approach.
Would it apply to all areas ? How about all housing developments regardless of location ? Allocation of city funds for all city services ? Police and firefighter staffing ? Parking garages ? Where do you see the line being for council decisions vs citizen direct vote decisions?
[i]Don: How does the low income parent trying to follow the CDC recommendation not to use fluoridated water to mix baby formula afford the delivered water? (Do you have any single Lemon Boy plants in stock?) [/i]
A gallon of drinking water (not necessarily spring water) from WalMart or Dollar Store is about 89 cents. Even my most voracious baby didn’t drink a gallon of formula a day. If it’s really a cost factor, the mother can breast feed. I think the social justice issue is a little overstated.
Yep, Lemon Boy is in stock.
JanW
[quote]s probably a substantial cause underlying the breast and thyroid cancer epidemics we see happening today.[/quote]
“probably” simply does not cut it. Please show me one iota of evidence that fluoride is implicated in an increased risk of breast cancer.
JanW says: “Fluoride, bromide and chloride are all mildly-to-very toxic in the body ,depending on the dose of course–especially to developing fetuses and babies. They all uptake in the same way in the body. Perhaps when each is taken one at a time, piece of bread here, a sip of water there, the dose is not harmful, But the more they combine–in our food in our water in our bodies, the more toxic they become together and the higher the dose ingested. And they crowd out iodine,the one “-ide” in this set which is not harmful but rather essential to the body and which most people in the USA are already deficient in. The body uptakes fluoride, bromide, chloride, daily, and there is no room for the actual nutrient, iodine/iodide in the subset to be taken into the body’s cells. The total dose of these mildly toxic “-ides” can become, when combined, damaging. And it is hard to measure the damage and disease caused today by a lack of iodine in our diets, but it is probably a substantial cause underlying the breast and thyroid cancer epidemics we see happening today. “
Jan, do you have some evidence for your pseudo-physiological explanation of the relationship between these different elements and how they affect the body? Maybe you could give us a more clear explanation rather than simple opinion. Could you direct us to some scientific explanation for this?
JanW: Epidemic of breast and thyroid cancer? What’s your evidence? As Nancy says let’s have a “fact-based” discussion instead of innuendo and assertions without any basis in the evidence.
Alan – once again the bogeyman approach of fluorosis. Do you have any evidence of long-term bad outcomes of mild-moderate fluorosis among adolescents? Have there been prospective or follow-ups among those children with this level? What, beyond discoloration of teeth are the bad outcomes?
Have there been any longterm studies of mortality rates among those who drink fluoridated water vs. those who do not? One would think that if fluoride were such a menace that there would be, but I have yet to see fluoride linked in a systematic way to any level of mortality, which is the real test of additives, medications, etc.
[quote]Yet with fluoridation, the situation will be reversed and the burden of buying bottled water to protect their babies health will be on poor families with young children[/quote]
Yet it is interesting that all of the local pediatricians with whom I work do not believe that water fluoridated to the level proposed is dangerous even to bottle fed children. They also, to a person feel that the answer to this is to encourage breast feeding, not to “detoxify” our current drinking water. All have signed a letter supporting fluoridation at the proposed level. Does anyone believe that our pediatricians are advocating poisoning our children ? Or do we believe that they are all ignorant ? Or are they all a part of a vast conspiracy ? I don’t buy it. I believe that our pediatricians are well trained, knowledgeable, caring individuals who went into medicine to support the health of, not poison our children.
[i]”A gallon of drinking water (not necessarily spring water) from WalMart or Dollar Store is about 89 cents. Even my most voracious baby didn’t drink a gallon of formula a day. If it’s really a cost factor, the mother can breast feed. I think the social justice issue is a little overstated. “[/i]
This notion of bottled water being a comparable alternative it is quite laughable… especially coming from those that advocate for a bicycle-powered transportation town with limited shopping options. So, how does that low-income, environmentally-conscience, car-less mother get her fluoride-free water? It seems quite cruel to punish her just to win the political argument.
And, don’t we know that disposable plastic water contains cancer-causing agents that leach into the water contained within?
We Americans have evolved our expectations for knowing what is in the food and drink that we ingest. Consumption of natural foods has exploded and is on the rise. At the same time, the dietary supplements industry has also exploded with choice and affordability. We want our food and our water pure and natural, and we can acquire and ingest supplements if we choose to do so.
I have a strong wheat allergy that took me 25 years to diagnose. It has caused me to appreciate clearly disclosed ingredients, and demand that we stop processing and modifying so much of our food and drink. I want to know exactly what I am eating and drinking, and be able to make choices for ingredients.
I frankly think many defending the fluoridation of water are stubbornly ignoring the rational and logical arguments against it, and have dug in their heels protecting some entrenched worldview they cling to. It is time to move on.
[quote]have dug in their heels protecting some entrenched worldview they cling to. It is time to move on.[/quote]
And what “entrenched worldview might that be” ? I can guarantee you that amongst the doctors I work with there are a wide variety of political and sociologic views held. And yet, there is virtual unanimity on this issue.
Those who are not proponents tend to be those who shrug and simply don’t consider it a major issue one way or the other.
[quote]I think the social justice issue is a little overstated.[/quote]
That is easy to say, Don, since you are neither low-income nor a minority disproportionately adversely affected by fluoridation. But what do the minorities themselves say about fluoridating their water.
Well, in 2011 the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest Latino Civil Rights Organization in the US, passed a resolution at their annual convention opposing fluoridation as “forced mass medication of the public drinking supplies” because it “violates civil rights.” In its resolution, LULAC “demands to know why government agencies entrusted with protecting the public health are more protective of the policy of fluoridation than they are of public health”.
Andrew Young, former UN Ambassador, mayor of Atlanta, wrote to the Georgia legislature in 2011, “My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation…
We originally thought people needed to swallow it, so the fluoride would be incorporated into teeth before they erupted from the gums. Our belief in the need for systemic absorption was why we began adding fluoride to drinking water. But now we know that the primary, limited cavity fighting effects of fluoride are topical, when fluorides touch teeth in the mouth. We know that
fluorides do little to stop cavities where they occur most often, in the pits and fissures of the back molars where food packs down into the grooves. This is why there is a big push today to use teeth sealants in the molars of children. We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades…
And on top of this we are learning that fluorides do not simply affect teeth, but can also harm other tissues and systems in the body. The National Research Council has acknowledged that kidney patients, diabetics, seniors, and infants are susceptible groups that are especially vulnerable to harm from fluorides. There are millions of these persons who have these health conditions or who meet the criteria for concern…
I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.”
Quite honestly, Don, I’m think the opinions of these honored civil rights groups and leaders trumps your opinion in terms of the impact of fluoride on minorities and as to whether the social justice issue is overstated.
We now know that access to dental care is the most important determinant of dental health and not access to fluoride in the drinking water. Which is why I find it so surprising and discomforting that only 4 private general dental practioners even accept new Denti-Cal patients in all of Yolo Co. Even CommuniCare, which also accepts Denti-Cal patients in Yolo Co, has the equivalent of only 4 full time dentists to serve their entire constituency. Speakers at the last WAC forum acknowledged that it takes 2 1/2 to 3 months just to get an appointment at CommuniCare to get a cavity filled.
Access to dental health care is a social justice issue and the band-aid approach of fluoridating our water does nothing to alleviate that problem.
@Frankly: If you’re resorting to a “meta-discussion” (discussion about the discussion), then that probably means you lost the argument. Let’s try to get back to the actual discussion. Thanks.
Dave wrote: “Could that money be better spent tackling other problems? Perhaps, but not under the present structure of where that money comes from.”
Not necessarily, Dave, because not all fluoridation money comes from the Public Works budget. First 5 money at least partly funded fluoridation in both Sacramento and West Sacramento.
Instead of using a lot of their money to fluoridate Davis’ Water, First 5 Yolo could use those funds to increase their well-placed contributions to children’s dental care at the Communicare ($200,000+ a year, if I correctly remember a statement recently made by a First 5 representative in from the Davis City Council.)
The Communicare web page says it provides these preventative and other dental services:
“CommuniCare’s dental program establishes a sound basis for promoting a healthy lifestyle that includes adequate and proper dental care. The dental program provides comprehensive acute and preventive dental care for children and adults, including ongoing treatments and emergency treatments. Dental services include oral exams, x-rays, cleanings, sealants, fillings, root canals, urgent care, surgery, dental education and preventive care. Referrals are given for specialty care that is not otherwise available at the clinic.”
http://www.communicarehc.org/View_webpage.asp?Title=Health Services > Dental
The capital, material, and maintenance costs of fluoridating Davis’ water could buy a lot of targeted care for those who need it most without fluoridating the tap water of everyone in Davis.
[quote]Medwoman said – Do you favor a direct vote on all controversial issues in Davis?…Where do you see the line being for council decisions vs citizen direct vote decisions?[/quote]
One of the lines is if a potentially hazardous chemical is put into our drinking water or released into the environment in large quantities – especially if the chemical has dubious medical value and known risks. If so, then yes we should have a say in that through a vote. And I further believe the City and the Vanguard should sponsor and publicize a series of public debates on the issue just as they did for the water project. I expect proponents of fluoridation would fiercely resist such a vote, however, because they lose more than 3 out of 4 times.
Don: Single plants or 6 packs?
Alan Pryor
Because I truly believe that you are sincere in your concern for the health and well being of our citizenry,
I would encourage you to read overviews on fluoride as a naturally occurring element, medication and a toxin, not in articles from 1952, China and Iran where the levels are not comparable and results should not be generalized as stated by the authors themselves, but rather in very clear summaries on Up to Date. It is not necessary to read the primary literature to be able to tell that fluoride is not listed as being credibly linked as a causative or contributory agent to any condition other than fluorosis at the proposed levels. You your self stated on a previous thread that there were “associations” at most. Yet now, you are again repeating the same
undemonstrated claims.
I have yet to see you address what every pediatrician believes to be best for infants which is breast feeding.
This is by far the best nutritionally and psychologically for the baby as well as by far the best economically especially for those who are economically disadvantaged. So according to your own logic, by far the best way to support these families would be to encourage breast feeding, provide optimal levels of fluoride, and provide dental care to all regardless of ability to pay.
First of all Medwoman, how about you disclose? You speak on the authority of “your” pediatricians” who “signed a letter”. How about re-printing that letter and disclosing their names here since they are openly standing up? Otherwise you really can’t use their authority any more than you say I cannot share information from the experts whose opinions I represented and that you demand I link for you. Right?
Further, there are plenty of physicians and dentists and other healthcare professionals who are against fluoridating the water. Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson (Sweden, physiology, medicine) for one. Please see my link above, if you will. Also several researchers have published on the effects of iodine deficiencies in the body strongly suggestive, even conclusive, of leading to the cancers I mention. Obviously, if the body is deficient in inorganic iodine it will uptake organic iodine from Fukushima or other nuclear leakages into the biosphere, and cancers–mostly thyroid– occur. I found this evidence and the studies you are looking for through becoming educated in nutrition, gong to the library and searching, and on the internet from reputable sites and papers published in peer-reviewed journals. I am assuming if you have not found the same information/research on these topics as I have, you are either not really looking or you are doing the typical thing of making me spin my wheels doing research for you that you could do yourself but will not do, and will not read, if I do it for you, anyway.
Fear of a conspiracy? No, but there is a gradual and subtle (and often for profit) rescinding of our right in the USA to choose our medications and our food free of additives, “healthy” or otherwise, happening today. And a kow-towing to authorities who accuse us of “owning multiple cats” implying we are “crazy” if we disagree with their mandates. It is an equality and justice issue on many levels. Here is a succinct summary:
“Up until now, people have been able to freely think, and go about activities of daily life. But what if the activities of daily life get altered as a by-product from the military-industrial complex to a point where thinking or having a natural body, eating real food, or breathing real air, stops?
Have you heard of biopharmaceuticals? Probably not on mainstream TV. This is a relatively new attempt at introducing medicines, into foods, through farming. There won’t be a need to discuss vaccine safety, or adjuvant cost-saving benefits. This process of genetic farming (not GMO food) has already started, for example with ‘golden’ rice. People could be automatically medicated.”
~Anne Gordon, RN, GreenMedInfo~
I am against healthy people, or almost any people but the extremely ill, being automatically medicated without their knowledge or consent. Authorities throughout history, medical or political, etc, have been wrong–very wrong–before in their mandates. But never before in history have these mandates been so stealthily applied to our very basic selves–our bodies and what our bodies ingest–without our knowledge or consent. I must say I am stunned and dismayed by the overall obedience to authority exhibited by the majority of the comments here. There is a passive acceptance of both ignorance and infringement by authority upon our basic rights. From fluoride in the water to nanoparticles in the MM’s candies, to biomedical vegetables, our food and water supplies are being vastly altered. All factual, information at your fingertips, not “theory”, conspiracy or otherwise. I hope David and many others here will, whatever your final thoughts are on fluoridating the water in Davis/Woodland, become more impressed, and soon, about the food and water alterations taking place today and the implications for personal autonomy, individual health, and the intrinsic,innate right to be a free human being in these days of authoritative technological invasions into our basic right to healthy food and pure water. Best of health to all.
Alan
[quote]One of the lines is if a potentially hazardous chemical is put into our drinking water or released into the environment in large quantities – especially if the chemical has dubious medical value and known risks[/quote]
And if this were what was being proposed, I would state that there should not be a vote and that the council should “just say no”. Why would we vote on putting a toxin in our water ? Well, maybe this seeming discrepancy because it is well demonstrated that it is not a toxin at the proposed levels which are not “large quantities”. Where is your proposal to “detoxify” our water by removing the presently naturally occurring fluoride if you are truly worried about toxicity.
[quote]Alan – once again the bogeyman approach of fluorosis. Do you have any evidence of long-term bad outcomes of mild-moderate fluorosis among adolescents? Have there been prospective or follow-ups among those children with this level?[/quote]
You can look up the answer your in any introductory dental textbook and you can see the effects for yourself. Clinical dental fluorosis is characterized by staining AND pitting of the teeth. In more severe cases ALL the enamel may be damaged.
And while you are looking up this basic dental information, I think you will notice that the primary and most important law taught in all introductory texts in both dental and medical health care (and embodied in almost the first paragraph of the California Dental Association Code of Ethics) is “First, do no harm”.
[quote]Have there been any longterm studies of mortality rates among those who drink fluoridated water vs. those who do not?[/quote]
I am not sure of the relevance of this thread of questioning? Are you seriously suggesting that if all fluoride does is disfigure people’s teeth and does not kill a statistically significant number of people earlier than otherwise expected that this constitutes, “doing no harm”?
The decision to fluoridate water does not rationally qualify to be decided by a direct vote because that would violate the principle of natural cooperation (and medical ethics).
The city does not have the ethical right to make such decision for the people. The people does not have the ethical right to make such decision for one another.
Just because “thou shalt not fluoridate thy neighbor’s water without permission” is not in the constitution does not mean that such decision qualifies to be decided by a vote. The laws and the constitutions lags behind ethics.
People only suggest that it should be voted on because a decision to fluoridate water would be unethical. The ethical order of the outcome is this:
1) Do not fluoridate the water
2) A direct vote
3) Fluoridate the water
Fluoridation is unnecessary to be done at the scope of a city, and the city cannot ethically afford the accountability of the consequences. The reason we are even talking about public fluoridation is that the decision makers have no sense of accountability for their actions in this regard. If we start talking about actual accountability, the city will realize that they don’t have enough power (e.g. money) to insure the damage to be making this kind of decision for its people nor the environment. The same goes for the dental community. This doesn’t mean that fluoride should be banned. It means that if someone wants it they have to get it at their own discretion.
JanW
I have fully disclosed on previous threads. My name is Tia Will. I work with Kaiser in Davis. I am not in possession of the letter from our pediatricians which is why I have not published it. I am sure that a copy could be supplied by Dr. Rick Baker who has spoken publicly on this issue.
I have made it clear that if anyone is willing to post their reference articles, I am willing to review them.
I do not see your reluctance to disclose your sources. I made my comments about the specific articles that had been provided to me by the opponents previously and would be happy to do the same for any articles you feel are relevant.
[quote]being automatically medicated without their knowledge or consent. [/quote]
I completely agree. However, that is not what is being proposed. Again, we are talking about a naturally occurring mineral which has never been demonstrated dangerous at the proposed levels. In addition, no one is suggesting doing anything without the knowledge of the citizens, and again their is no forcing as there is a readily available alternative.
[quote]Have you heard of biopharmaceuticals?[/quote]
I have definitely heard of biopharmaceuticals. I do not see the relevance to the current discussion given that
fluoride is a naturally occurring element already present in our water supply.
[From earlier thread] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6355:a-reasonable-campaign-to-fluoridate-our-drinking-water&catid=60:water&Itemid=92&cpage=30#comment-181495[/url])
On the meaning of ethics and choice:
[quote][quote]So, in theory one could make an economic, but not an ethical case against it since it is not compulsory.[/quote]
By this statement you declare it ethical (by medical profession) for a doctor to bill a person (who is not their patient) for a drug (that they did not order) that they applied to the person’s water supply (without their consent and without compensation) because the doctor did not lie about it and didn’t force the person to drink it.[/quote]
Medical ethics is compatible with accountability.
Based on accountability, a doctor would not force a patient to use a certain medication because the in most cases, the doctor cannot predict (does not know enough to predict) the effect of medication to on an individual to be personally accountable for any ill effect. Since the doctor does not know enough to cover himself for that decision, the doctor [b]must[/b] leave that decision to the patient. It is a matter of “don’t bite more than what you can swallow”. When the doctor let the patient decides whether to be medicate, the doctor is only accountable for the information.
Similarly, for the city (or the people) to decide whether the public water should be fluoridate, the entity making the decision is accountable for the health and environmental damages of that decision. Ethically, when the city tries to fluoridate, the city is making this declaration:
“We are fluoridating the water, and here are the risks we know. Since everyone is different, we know that we might hurt someone by our decision. In that case, we will compensate whoever that is hurt because based on our analysis, the benefit we get will be able to cover those damages. If not, it would have been irresponsible for use to make such decision without the diligence to confirm that we can handle the risk of the change we decide to make. We also declare that we will cover all unforeseen damage because we are making a change despite protest of lack of analysis. Therefore, we are fully accountable for the damages including those from risks that we have not analyzed.”
If we were to put this on a direct vote (to make a decision that would apply to everyone), each individual who votes yes is subjected to their fair share of the declaration above.
Therefore, if ethics and accountability are considered, people should understand that they don’t have enough power/money to be making this kind of decision for someone else. They think that they can make such decision because they don’t understand enough about accountability and did not subscribe to such ethics to know that this is not just a matter of making a decision–they also have to pay for the consequences.
Alan
With regard to the principle “first, do no harm”. If this were to be taken literally, in all circumstances, there would be no medications, surgeries, immunizations or public health measures of any kind at all. It is impossible to know whether or not a given intervention may or may not “harm” an individual patient. For example, if a patient has never been exposed to the penicillin class of medication, there is no way for me to know whether or not they will be the rare individual who will have a life threatening reaction on first exposure. This should not preclude me giving the antibiotic if there is a high probability that the patient will benefit and a very low probability of the adverse outcome. What one must weight in any medical decision making is the risk/benefit ratio. As a doctor, I make these decisions on a daily basis. From my reading of the literature and consultation with my colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that the benefits of fluoridation at the proposed level out weight the risks. For me, that is the crux of the issue.
Alan – the hue and cry of anti-fluoridation proponents far outweighs its risks (as far as I am concerned). My comment about mortality associated with fluoride is simply that if it is so bad, why haven’t there been more research into the longterm negative consequences (including mortality)?
And regards my request for information the longterm effects of moderate fluorosis – and I think that’s what the studies you cite have documented – is the pitting of teeth one of those effects or is that from longterm exposure to high levels of fluoride – for instance more than what one can expect in municipal fluoridation of drinking water.
First do not harm: How about weighing the risks and the benefits. No medical or public health effort is 100% risk free. We weigh the risks and the benefits. The risks of fluoridation, from the evidence so far, seem to be less than the longterm benefit – in my opinion. It looks from where I sit that most of the major dental and public health entities in this country have decided that the risks associated with fluoridation of domestic water are outweighed by the benefits.
Edgar – where does your proposition that “medical ethics is compatible with accountability” come from?
Re: rdcanning
[quote]Edgar – where does your proposition that “medical ethics is compatible with accountability” come from?[/quote]
Deduction. [the context] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7258:commentary-unimpressed-why-im-not-moved-by-the-fluoridation-outrage&catid=60:water&Itemid=92&cpage=30#comment-181646[/url])
To say that medical ethics is compatible with accountability means that the two concepts can be implemented simultaneously. To say that medical ethics is incompatible with accountability means that they cannot simultaneously implemented.
My statement meant that a doctor can simultaneously follow medical ethics and accountability at the same time because there is no conflict between the two.
Risk shifting
Anna has a supply of fluoride compound and wants to make some money out of it. Anna makes a sales pitch to Bonnie (who is a city council member) to have that added to the public water. Anna’s sales pitch include the following points:
1) Fluoride in water will dramatically reduce tooth decay and saves dental expense for the people
2) Fluoride is safe and is not associated with any zombie apocalypse in the last 60 years
3) Fluoridation is a decision that the city should make to bring the most benefits to the most people.
Bonnie believes Anna and proposes a plan to use city general fund for the fluoridation. Cindy (another city council member), questions the plan for the following reasons:
1) Why does the city need to pay for it? If it is clear that fluoridation saves people money, shouldn’t those people pay for it directly?
2) Which city agency will receive the most benefit for this change? What is the estimated margin of saving?
3) Who will cover the damages for such decision if anything unsuspected goes wrong?
JanW: [i]Fluoride, bromide and chloride are all mildly-to-very toxic in the body ,depending on the dose of course–especially to developing fetuses and babies.[/i]
and
Frankly: [i]I think you are just failing to accept the difference. It is a profound difference. Chorine is added to the water for the purpose of the water. Fluoride is added to the water for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED purpose.[/i]
Nearly everything I can think of will kill you in high enough doses, including water ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia[/url]).
Ironically, fluoride, chloride, bromide, and iodide are elements that have many chemical similarities ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen[/url]) and are found in similar minerals and environments (as salts in the ocean, for instance). But just as any high dose of any of these elements will kill you, so to will completely eliminating these elements from your diet. From that perspective, drinking hardwater isn’t necessarily unhealthy.
[quote]To D Greenwald – “Given nearly 50 years of exposure to fluoridated water, we should have some actual evidence of impact and I see no studies that show the widespread impact of fluoridation on health.”[/quote]
The CDC says 41% of 12-15 year old teenagers have mild to severe fluorosis which is ONLY caused by overexposure to fluoride. Would you suggest that is not an impact? The CDC and ADA says don’t feed fluoridated water to young children because of the risk of fluorosis. Would you say that is not an impact?
In fact, the most important impact that has NOT been shown is that fluoridated water actually prevents cavities – a fact conveniently ignored by pro-fluoridationalists. It is literally an old wives tale based on flawed and disreputable studies done 50 or more years ago.
For instance, none of the so-called studies espoused by proponents of fluoridation as proving the efficacy of fluoridation were double blind randomized trials. That is the gold standard by which efficacy of all medications are judged in the US. Why is such a standard not required by the pro-fluoridationalists when evaluating efficacy of fluoride to prevent tooth decay?
Another huge impediment for drawing any meaningful conclusions about the efficacy of drinking water fluoridation has been a virtual complete lack of dose information. Most studies have simply used the level of fluoride in the water as an indicator of dose. This is really a rather crude and inaccurate measure of dosage. Further, none of these so-called “scientific” studies even attempted to relate the affect being studied to dose by using some biomarker of exposure.
Given such wide variation in fluoride exposure for individuals from many sources in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, without a biomarker of exposure (like levels of fluoride in the bone) meaningful conclusions from epidemiologiocal studies are virtually worthless.
But good science eventually prevails – at least in other countries with more advanced and less expensive health care systems than the US. That is why in the several years previous bastions of mandatory fluoridation have ended the compulsory and forced medication of drinking water in the provinces of Ontario, Canada and Queensland, Australia and in the nation of Israel. These are not exactly little 3rd-world backwaters. On a per capita basis, they are all substantially more educated than the US.
Whoa, everyone. This discussion is interesting, but I haven’t heard how the plumbing of the new project will guarantee there will be too much, not enough or just the right dosage levels of fluoride to economically justify adding it regardless of whether people are for or against.
In my mind’s eye, I see the water from the river sucked up by pumps, at times and in years that it is available, in different quantities throughout the year, treated (at this point the fluoride is added?), pumped via pipeline to Davis, and then mixing in somehow with the groundwater pumped from a number of wells scattered across Davis. How would the city know that a predictable amount of fluoride would be available at the point of any individual tap on any given day of the year?
Alan:
If that’s the case, why does the CDC call fluoridation one of the great health achievements of the 20th century?
From their website: “For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. “
wdf1: fluoride, chloride and bromide are absolutely not necessary to our bodies’ health whatsoever and are toxic–albeit mildly in small doses. Iodide is very necessary to preserving health and life and my point is not to conflate them all as you have done but to show that the three that ARE toxic prevent the usefulness of the one that is an actual nutrient,iodide. The similarities the three toxic “-ides” have with the one nutrient iodide TRICK the body into uptaking them–leaving our cells too full of the toxic -ides to uptake the necessary nutrient iodide, when it presents.
Your argument that too much of anything can kill you, even water is one used all the time. It is a non-argument, which runs, in it’s logical extension to saying since anything can kill you when misused (such as drinking the gallons of water it might take to maybe kill you), then you might as well just drink this rat poison right now. Anything can kill you, so?
Tia/medwoman. If you really want to follow up on my comments please read the works of Dr. David Brownstein and his fellow researchers on the value of iodine and the toxicity of fluoride, bromide and chloride. And the works of Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson for the research on the toxicity of fluoride and the inadvisability of putting it into the public water supply.
David said:
[quote]Alan:
If that’s the case, why does the CDC call fluoridation one of the great health achievements of the 20th century?
From their website: “For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. “[/quote]
To critically understand CDC’s statement, one must understand the following questions:
1) Is it possible that a decision is great in 20th century, but not in 21th century because people’s behavior, diet, and exposure to fluoride has changed?
2) Is it possible that the greatest decision in 20th century was a bad decision and only known retrospectively in 21th century?
The existence of award that a decision gets is not relevant to the correctness of the decision because the awarding agency is no omniscient. What is correct is correct with or without award.
If you read the 2005 report by ADA in support of fluoridation, you will see many logical errors. That should show you the quality (insufficient quality) of the logical analysis that goes into these decisions. My estimation of the density of logical errors in that report is 1 error per page. If someone wants to talk about that please specify which statement or which page. Otherwise there are too many holes to poke. [The ADA 2005 report] ([url]http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf[/url])
Teeth are not our only organ, and I didn’t support the Sacramento River Water Project with the understanding it would cause fluoridation. Only 2 percent of Europe and less than 5 percent of the world fluoridates, with several European countries pulling out fairly recently, because people have decided that the harms of uncertain magnitude outweigh the benefits of uncertain magnitude.
– The Harvard meta-analysis combined statistical studies statistically and arrived at 99.9 percent statistical confidence that children drinking fairly heavily chlorinated water averaged a little lower IQ. Their concern was that an average small effect of neural toxicants usually reflects little or no effect on most people but big effects on sensitive groups, including people of low IQ. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562)
– A separate 2011 study of 331 kids evaluated dose and IQ, a found a negative relationship with 98.8 percent confidence. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562) Note the science is still evolving and we shouldn’t be wed to old decisions.
– A 2012 study shows that children with more fluorosis are needing to produce more Thyroid Stimulating Hormone to obtain the same levels of thyroid hormones, supporting the hypothesis that the thyroid has to work harder since fluoride can bind to iodide receptor sites in the thyroid gland, which could lead to long term burnout. Thyroid harm is NOT disproven by widespread fluoridation since thyroid illness has risen at the same time as widespread fluoridation. Fluoride is certainly known to be a 1950s treatment for over-active thyroid in Europe, replaced when presumably superior medications came along.
– Fluoride concerns are not the domain of kooks. The National Academy of Science’s National Research Council’s Board on Environmental Sciences published a study in 2006 that includes the likelihood that fluoride, which is known to accumulate in the pineal gland, affects pineal functions (sleep and puberty age), and saying “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”
– The 1500-member US EPA scientists/professionals’ union voted unanimously to oppose fluoridation because “Our members review of the body of evidence … indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.” They detail their reasons at http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.html
– Also in dosing fluoride we need to be aware that diabetics will drink more fluoride and may have kidneys less capable of eliminating it.
Conclusion: Apply medications topically (to the teeth and the desired populations) when their effect is uncertain.
JanW: [i]fluoride, chloride and bromide are absolutely not necessary to our bodies’ health whatsoever[/i]
Then try cutting all salt entirely out of your diet and see what happens. You most definitely need salt to regulate osmotic processes in your body, without which you would die. Salts are predominantly NaCl — that’s sodium [b]chloride[/b]. Which in particular is what galled me about your original quote: [i]fluoride, [b]chloride[/b] and bromide are absolutely not necessary to our bodies’ health whatsoever and [b]are toxic[/b]–albeit mildly in small doses[/i]
Halogen elements — fluorine, chlorine, iodine, bromine — typically substitute for each other in chemical compounds. That’s how table salt that you buy from the store contains iodine, and how fluorine is introduced
JanW: [i]Your argument that too much of anything can kill you, even water is one used all the time. It is a non-argument, which runs, in it’s logical extension to saying since anything can kill you when misused (such as drinking the gallons of water it might take to maybe kill you), then you might as well just drink this rat poison right now. Anything can kill you, so?[/i]
It doesn’t take as much water to kill you as you would suggest. It’s actually a basic health concern to marathoners and triathletes that if at a certain point you don’t take in a certain amount of salts when you rehydrate, then you can die of hyponatremia ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia[/url]).
I use the example of water because you keep referring to [b]dosage[/b] and then come back to negate my example as saying that dosage is a non-argument when it comes to water. I think your logic imploded.
wdf1: [i]That’s how table salt that you buy from the store contains iodine, and how fluorine is introduced[/i]
…in table salt in some countries.
alanpryor: [i]The CDC says 41% of 12-15 year old teenagers have mild to severe fluorosis which is ONLY caused by overexposure to fluoride.[/i]
Do you have a source on that?
And is fluorosis a concern beyond aesthetic discoloration of teeth?
As I noted, a 2012 study shows kids with fluorosis are producing more thyroid stimuating hormone than normal. Of course there fluorosis serves as a marker for higher fluoride intake.
Medwoman/Tia, you haven’t apparently opened nor commented upon the link I have already supplied, and yet you say you will look at any subsequent links with interest? Not convinced.
wdf1,you are right sodium chloride is necessary to the body of course. Other forms are not and can be toxic, such as chlorine. And I guess I should have said “lots of water” or “a certain amount of water different for each and every person depending upon which extreme sport you are participating in and to what crazy extent you are punishing your body on this particular day at this particular temperature and altitude” instead of the exaggeration of gallons–but dosage is certainly very important, especially when speaking of toxic substances like fluoride, and especially combined with all the other unknown and untraceable toxins we are now exposed to in our food and water daily. Less so when speaking of the water we all drink every day–the purer the better thank you– and which actually makes up our bodies, not the toxic elements like fluoride and bromide and some forms of chloride that have no business in our systems.
JanW: [i]…fluoride and bromide and some forms of chloride that have no business in our systems.[/i]
Might be time to be cleansed:
[quote]Fluoride anions are found in ivory, bones, teeth, blood, eggs, urine, and hair of organisms. Fluoride anions in very small amounts are essential for humans. There are 0.5 milligrams per liter of fluorine in human blood. Human bones contain 0.2 to 1.2% fluorine. Human tissue contains approximately 50 parts per billion of fluorine. A typical 70-kilogram human contains 3 to 6 grams of fluorine.
Chloride anions are essential to a large number of species, humans included. The concentration of chlorine in the dry weight of cereals is 10 to 20 parts per million, while in potatoes the concentration of chloride is 0.5%. Plant growth is adversely affected by chloride levels in the soil falling below 2 parts per million. Human blood contains an average of 0.3% chlorine. Human bone contains typically contains 900 parts per million of chlorine. Human tissue contains approximately 0.2 to 0.5% chlorine. There is a total of 95 grams of chlorine in a typical 70-kilogram human.
Some bromine in the form of the bromide anion is present in all organisms. A biological role for bromine in humans has not been proven, but some organisms contain organobromine compounds. Humans typically consume 1 to 20 milligrams of bromine per day. There are typically 5 parts per million of bromine in human blood, 7 parts per million of bromine in human bones, and 7 parts per million of bromine in human tissue. A typical 70-kilogram human contains 260 milligrams of bromine.
Source ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen[/url])[/quote]
JanW
I have had out of town guests and a social event this evening. I have not ignored your comment and appreciate your reading recommendations. Do those include a reference to the issue of fluoride and breast cancer as that is an area of special interest for me ?
Adrienne Kandel says: [quote]- The Harvard meta-analysis combined statistical studies statistically and arrived at 99.9 percent statistical confidence that children drinking fairly heavily chlorinated water averaged a little lower IQ. Their concern was that an average small effect of neural toxicants usually reflects little or no effect on most people but big effects on sensitive groups, including people of low IQ. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562)
– A separate 2011 study of 331 kids evaluated dose and IQ, a found a negative relationship with 98.8 percent confidence. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562) Note the science is still evolving and we shouldn’t be wed to old decisions. [/quote]
I think you meant “fairly heavily” fluoridated water, not chlorinated water.
Let’s talk IQ for a moment. (BTW, your link for both studies was to the same article. But that’s less important than the implications of what they say.) First off, I am not sure what the relation between urine fluoride levels are to fluoride intake and levels of water. Second, IQ tests typically have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. Thus a change in IQ of .59 points is almost nothing and has very little “clinical” meaning. I do not have the article to know what the range of urine fluoride levels are but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that they range from 0 to 10 mg (probably an exaggeration). If we take the abstract’s statement that each 1 mg/l of urine F accounted for 0.59 IQ points, then the range would be 0 to 5.9 points. 5.9 points may be within the confidence intervals of the administrations of IQ points. But the paper (at least the abstract) doesn’t tell us and doesn’t give us the standard error of this test in this setting. Without knowing that one should be very cautious about making generalizations. And, one should be cautious because this is China and not Davis. We know that they covaried the childrens’ ages, but what about other aspects of their health or diet or even differences due to ethnicity.
It’s good that science evolves. But it may be evolving toward less evidence of negative affects of fluoridation rather than more. There are no studies that I know of IQ differences among US children that demonstrate differences between those who drink fluoridated water and non-fluoridated water. If you know of any, please post the citations.
JanW
[quote]Tia/medwoman. If you really want to follow up on my comments please read the works of Dr. David Brownstein and his fellow researchers on the value of iodine and the toxicity of fluoride, bromide and chloride. And the works of Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson for the research on the toxicity of fluoride and the inadvisability of putting it into the public water supply.[/quote]
So I took the following steps and will share my impressions:
1) As to the video refutation of the comments of Dr. Wu in his commentary on the video of the pediatrician
Dr. Whyte. All of these videos the original and the point and counterpoint are based on the individual opinion
of the professional making the promotional tape. References to actual studies are virtually non existent in
these presentations. The linked video you provided is largely based on a semantic dispute over whether or
not fluoride can or should be considered a medicine. It has its own share of misleading statements including
the implication that fluoride can only be purchased over the counter as a medication when it is patently
obvious that it can be purchased over the counter in toothpastes, mouth washes, and indeed is a component
of some beverages. If it had been determined to be a “medicine” for any and all circumstances, this would
not be the case, clearly indicating that dosage is an important consideration.
2) Dr. Brownstein is one of many self styled authorities whose authorship is done in promotion of their own
book sales and brands rather than any specialized knowledge in their field. This is my opinion only. If you
could direct me to any scholarly or peer reviewed articles by Dr. Brownstein, I would be happy to revise my
opinion.
3) Arvid Carlsson’s area of expertise is dopamine, not fluoride toxicity. His statements with regard to fluoride
were with regard to the “potential toxicity” not demonstrated toxicity and his personal belief that there
“might be some harm to some individuals” from water fluoridation. This is very heavy on speculation. I was
unable to find any definitive statements based on primary research to indicate how he arrived at this
conclusion. If you are aware of such primary studies, I would be happy to review them and give you my
opinion. To be completely honest, I do not review the statistical analysis myself when reviewing articles since
my mathematical and statistical skills are lacking. I do however review the materials and methods portions of
the original papers with a friend who does possess these skills prior to commenting.
JanW: [i]…fluoride and bromide and some forms of chloride that have no business in our systems.[/i]
Be sure to avoid sea salt. In addition to the predictable sodium chloride, sea salt has other dissolved trace elements from the oceans.
[img]http://epidote.wvgs.wvnet.edu/enviro/table9_2.jpg[/img]
[quote]It has its own share of misleading statements including the implication that fluoride can only be purchased over the counter as a medication when it is patently obvious that it can be purchased over the counter in toothpastes, mouth washes, and indeed is a component of some beverages. If it had been determined to be a “medicine” for any and all circumstances, this would not be the case, clearly indicating that dosage is an important consideration.[/quote]
What is a product name of “fluoride” that can be purchased to be ingested other than bottle water?
Other facts about the context:
o Toothpastes and mouth washes are not sold to be ingested [FDA-Accessdata] ([url]http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=355.50[/url]).
o FDA classifies toothpastes with fluoride a drug [FDA] ([url]http://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ucm074201.htm[/url]).
o Mouthwash with therapeutic claims is a drug [FDA] ([url]http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm242716.htm[/url])
o Fluoride level is regulated in bottled water [FDA-Accessdata] ([url]http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=165.110[/url]) (The equivalent maximum level for Davis with average temperature of 60F is 1.3 mg/L if the water is sold as bottled water.)
o Labeling is required for Fluoride additives for bottled water[CDC] ([url]http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/bottled_water.htm[/url]).
[quote]alanpryor: The CDC says 41% of 12-15 year old teenagers have mild to severe fluorosis which is ONLY caused by overexposure to fluoride.
Do you have a source on that?
And is fluorosis a concern beyond aesthetic discoloration of teeth?[/quote]
Source: [CDC] ([url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm[/url])
Dental fluorosis is on the same risk scale as other fluoride dosage risks such as skeletal fluorosis and mental retardation. Based on the 2006 NRC report, the relative risk scale is this:
0.34 – Risk of Mental Retardation
0.24 – Risk of Stage II,III Skeletal Fluorosis (“4mg/L”)
0.12 – Risk of TSIF 4-7 Enamel Fluorosis (“2mg/L”)
We say that a person is at risk when that person has a chance of getting the effect. Whether that person gets the effect depends on the physiology of that person.
When a person has an effect, that person is not “at risk”, but “got the effect”. The risk scale for that person should be adjusted accordingly. For example, if a person got TSIF 4-7 Enamel Fluorosis, his fluoride dosage on the risk scale has exceeded 0.12. We might not know how much it went above the risk level, he could be below or above his risk level of skeletal fluorosis.
[quote]TSIF index. TSIF 4-7 [NRC 2006] ([url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=110[/url]):
4 = Enamel shows staining in conjunction with any of the preceding levels of fluorosis. Staining is defined as an area of definite discoloration that may range from light to very dark brown.
5 = Discrete pitting of the enamel exists, unaccompanied by evidence of staining of intact enamel. A pit is defined as a definite physical defect in the enamel surface with a rough floor that is surrounded by a wall of intact enamel. The pitted area is usually stained or differs in color from the surrounding enamel.
6 = Both discrete pitting and staining of the intact enamel exist.
7 = Confluent pitting of the enamel surface exists. Large areas of enamel may be missing and the anatomy of the tooth may be altered. Dark-brown stain is usually present.[/quote]
[quote]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=170][NRC 2006][/url]:
Clinical stage II is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones. Stage III has been termed “crippling” skeletal fluorosis because mobility is significantly affected as a result of excessive calcifications in joints, ligaments, and vertebral bodies. This stage may also be associated with muscle wasting and neurological deficits due to spinal cord compression. The current MCLG is based on induction of crippling skeletal fluorosis (50 Fed. Reg. 20164 [1985]).[/quote]
If a person gets 75% of the fluoride they ingest from tap water, and drinks 4 cups of that water a day, and if that person currently has TSIF 4 dental fluorosis, then that person:
a) may already have skeletal fluorosis
b) may already be at risk of skeletal fluorosis
c) may be at risk of skeletal fluorosis within 9.5 cups of that water per day.
This math has nothing to do with the fluoridation level of the water because it is already normalized to whatever the fluoridation level is. If the current fluoridation level is 0.18mg/L (average of 0.1mg/L and 0.36mg), the equivalent risk level for that person (who already has TSIF 4 DF) is below 0.24mg/day, which means that his risk level for skeletal fluorosis is below 0.48mg/day. If the water becomes fluoridated to 0.70mg/L, his fluoride intake would become 0.76mg/day, exceeding his risk level for skeletal fluorosis.
CDC on fluoride supplements:
[CDC] ([url]http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/other.htm#2[/url])
[quote][b]Form:[/b] Tablets, lozenges, or liquids (including fluoride-vitamin preparations) are available. Most supplements contain sodium fluoride as the active ingredient. Tablets and lozenges are manufactured with 1.0, 0.5, or 0.25 mg fluoride.
[b]Use: [/b]Fluoride supplements can be prescribed for children at high risk for tooth decay and whose primary drinking water has a low fluoride concentration. To maximize the topical effect of fluoride, tablets and lozenges are intended to be chewed or sucked for 1–2 minutes before being swallowed.
[b]Availability:[/b] All fluoride supplements must be prescribed by a dentist or physician. The prescription should be consistent with the 2010 dosage schedule* pdf icon (PDF–756K) developed by American Dental Association (ADA).
[b]Recommendation:[/b] For children aged less than 6 years, the dentist, physician, or other health care provider should weigh the risk for tooth decay without fluoride supplements, the decay prevention offered by supplements, and the potential for dental fluorosis. Consideration of the child’s other sources of fluoride, especially drinking water, is essential in determining this balance. Parents and caregivers should be informed of both the benefit of protection against tooth decay and the possibility of dental fluorosis.[/quote]
David: Is there anyone who might know the answer to the question I asked earlier “How would the city know that a predictable amount of fluoride would be available at the point of any individual tap on any given day of the year?” It’s not clear to me that fluoridation can be consistently accomplished whether one is for, against or neutral.
I will check to see how that would work. The only question might be those times when we are also pumping from the wells. Perhaps if Matt Williams is read this still, he will have a better answer.
The notion that the ant-fluoridation side is crazy or uninformed does not logically follow from the fluoridation record of the rest of the world. Most advanced Western democracies do not fluoridate their water, and have come to that decision using rigorous scientific evaluations.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country
Be wary of people who attempt to paint anti-fluoridation people as fools and tools. They are using coercive rhetoric. This is a genuine scientific debate. The nations whose governments I most respect in the world have almost all decided against water fluoridation.
wdf1: Thank you for the science lesson. First I already allowed that sodium chloride is necessary to health. I do indeed use sea salt in my diet, no worries there. I am at fault for not distinguishing between the inessential minerals already found in our bodies from the synthetic types of chloride, bromide in processed foods and the fluoride some want dumped in our water supply, none of which, I still contend, have any place in our bodies. I thought the distinction would be obvious, my error.
Medwoman: David Brownstein is a qualified researcher and physician. No surprise that you would attack him personally rather than look at his research, which you have deemed already “beneath your notice.” Arvid Carlsson may be an expert in many things, as you say, and his area of expertise is physiology medicine. It is amusing that you would try to narrow his field for him to only one of his primary areas of study implying he is not qualified to comment on the use of fluoride in the public water system. Yes what a slacker that Carlsson is. Never mind that the entire country of Sweden–and they may have a few other scientists living there, I don’t know–backed his recommendation and did not fluoridate their water supply. But just because Sweden found his credentials good enough, I guess that is no reason for you to do so…? And here’s from Ernesto above, makes sense to me:
Be wary of people who attempt to paint anti-fluoridation people as fools and tools. They are using coercive rhetoric. This is a genuine scientific debate. The nations whose governments I most respect in the world have almost all decided against water fluoridation.
@Ernesto and JanW: Your previous two comments are at the level of a “meta-debate”, i.e., a “debate about the debate”. That’s usually a sign that someone has lost an argument. It’s not obvious to me by perusing the Wikipedia article that what you say, Ernesto, is true.
[quote]Many European countries have rejected water fluoridation in general. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,[33] Scotland[34] Iceland, and Italy.[/quote]”
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country[/url]
Look at the Europe section, Brian. It is a table of current European water fluoridation policies. Most of them have chosen not to fluoridate their water.
The fact that almost all of them have chosen this path indicates that there is a scientific basis for opposition to water fluoridation.
I don’t know how to break it down for you any further.
Ernesto, with all due respect, simply because European countries as a whole have not chosen to fluoridate does not necessarily mean they have done it for scientifically (evidence-based) reasons. Fluoridation, as can be seen by the debate here in Davis, has aspects that have nothing to do with the scientific value of fluoridation. There are issues of choice and choices that reflect a distrust of government intervention in the private lives of citizens.
Many of us who are in favor of fluoridation have scientific and/or medical backgrounds. I’m not aware of posters on the Vanguard name calling (except Rifkin – who said his peace and left)the opponents. Most of the discourse on this thread has been reasonable and thoughtful.
The opponents of fluoridation cite a few articles repeatedly (the Harvard IQ study, the NRC study – which limited itself to levels of F between 2-4 mg/l – and a few others). Alan has many more papers, but relies on the NRC and a few others for his points – forcefully made.
My main problem is that there is no coherent, replicated body of scientific evidence that supports most of the anti-arguments. The IQ data is minimal and has little to do with domestic water fluoridation in the U.S. Another study that has been mentioned by Dr. Leonard in her letter to the City Council did not have any statistical testing to show differences and yet she claimed broad generalization based on one unsupported statement in the study. I think it is these kinds of broad generalizations from little hard data that make many of us uncomfortable. When I balance the evidence, the anti-fluoridation arguments and evidence simply do not add up to the weight of evidence for the positive benefits of fluoridation. And this is a balancing of risks and benefits. Yes, there is evidence that fluorosis occurs and could be, in the extreme, a harmful effect of fluoride. But in the long run I believe it is outweighed by the evidence for decreased dental caries and the costs of that syndrome for both children and adults.
And let’s face it, there have been some pretty strange characters opposing fluoridation over the years. There are many thoughtful and reasoned folks who oppose it. But there are also screamers and Chicken Little’s. I’m not sure I know of many pro-fluoride who believe that fluoridation of domestic drinking water will save the world.
Brian Riley, lol! You gave me a good laugh. You are accusing Ernesto and myself of “meta-arguments” and “losing” the debate? I scrolled through the comments–every one of yours is a short attack on a comment that does not share your viewpoint–you have not made one original point to add to the debate–how about you stick to the subject at hand? My taking the time to clarify a point that was misunderstood and misrepresented is not resorting to “meta-debate.” Although I will allow this back and forth with you, surely is–!!
But thanks for asking Ernesto to give us the data on his contention that Europe does not fluoridate—good to have.
JanW
You have chosen to attribute words and sentiments to me that I do not hold and did not imply. I stated that the very general suggestions about reading involved only these two gentlemen’s opinion and there was no reference to the scientific research that lead them to their specific opinions with regard to fluoride. I think that I also made it clear that if you or anyone else can provide me with links to their research, or even to their primary sources that caused them to hold those opinions, I would be happy to consider those.
I work in an evidence based profession. I do not put much stock in “expert opinion” unless I can see what evidence led to that opinion. This is true in my field of obstetrics and gynecology as it is in any other area of medicine and public health.
With regard to fluoridation in Sweden, realizing that Wikepedia information is not rigorously tested in and of itself I do think the following paragraph is quite telling:
Sweden
In 1952, Norrköping in Sweden became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply.[59] It was declared illegal by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in 1961, re-legalized in 1962[60] and finally prohibited by the parliament in 1971,[61] after considerable debate. The parliament majority said that there were other and better ways of reducing tooth decay than water fluoridation. Four cities received permission to fluoridate tap water when it was legal.[59]:56-57 An official commission was formed, which published its final report in 1981. They recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (improving food and oral hygiene habits) instead of fluoridating tap water. They also found that many people found fluoridation to impinge upon personal liberty/freedom of choice by forcing them to be medicated, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were insufficiently acknowledged. They also lacked a proper study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.[59]:29
According to this passage, the decision to not fluoridate was multifactorial including the possibility of preference for other strategies, political preferences, and probably the existence of a different system of health care overall. I simply do not believe that just because Sweden chose for a number of reasons to choose a different strategy, that this says anything at all about what strategy might be best for us.
For those still lingering on this thread, here is yet another way to get a dose of fluoride into your system without your knowledge or consent: fluoride-based antibiotics. So if you or your children are getting an antibiotic you may now want to ask if it contains fluoride.
http://naturalsociety.com/dangers-fluoride-based-antibiotics-avoid-natural-solutions/
Also as someone pointed out to me recently, in addition to getting a dose of fluoride from the tap water that is fluoridated, you will also get fluoride in the drinks you purchase that may come from companies that use fluoridated tap water as their base. Our daily dose of fluoride just,,,gets,,,higher.
Medwoman. Grasping for straws. Your paragraph about Sweden presents a compelling picture for avoiding fluoridation. I think the common denominator is that both Swedish and American children are human and if it isn’t good for Swedes it wouldn’t be good for us either. Sweden wisely employs the precautionary principle–we would do very well to follow their example. But I do appreciate your example of courtesy in the debate. Once again if you wish to find Brownstein, Flechas and Abraham’s research on the dangers of fluoride ingestion all you have to do is exert yourself a bit as I did. Examples of the dangers of fluoridation–hard data and research are available– but I will not do the work for you or anyone–been there and done that.
JanW
So what i am hearing you say, is that even though you have done the research that you find convincing, you are not willing to share those resources. This is hardly in the spirit of a free, honest and open debate. And at least in the area of breast cancer research, since this is what I have done for 1/2 of my career for the past 16 years, unless you are willing to provide your specific reference, given my literature search, I will have to assume that you simply do not have, or do not care to share your resource.
@JanW: My comment was at the level of the “meta-meta-debate,” which had the purpose of encouraging people to engage in the actual debate.
@medwoman, I’m a STEM researcher at UCD with a Ph.D.
I’ve looked over the literature myself, and I’ve been through many similar sorts of debates.
The reason water fluoridation is so bitterly contested is that the science doesn’t point clearly
in any one direction.
Look at “Systematic review of water fluoridation” BMJ 2000; [url]http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855[/url – it finds the evidence weak in any direction ( but leaves out some critical studies that would make the harm evdence weigh much more heavily. See the comments, particularly Connett -[url]http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855?tab=responses[/url] )
I don’t understand how a health professional who has taken an objective look at the issue can take a strong pro-fluoridation stand. It makes no sense to me.
Ernesto
Thank you for your reference. I will have time to look at it tomorrow. I had a brief interaction with a friend of mine that might present a different perspective for you. When I told her how much time I had put in to researching the fluoride issue, she said ” you must be really passionate about fluoridation”. My response to her is that I am not the least bit passionate about fluoridation. What I am passionate about is that the issue be settled on the basis of the best information available. What I have seen from the opponents of fluoridation are two main themes.
1) Fluoride is a toxin which should not be added to our water.
2) This is forced medication of the entire population.
Both of these arguments are based on fear, speculation, and a particular political outlook.
So far, I have yet to see a scientifically valid objection to fluoride at the proposed levels with the exception of mild fluorosis. I freely admit that I prioritize cavity prevention over the issue of a mild cosmetic effect. I am still looking and will consider your reference as soon as soon as I can tomorrow.
[quote][quote]…the science doesn’t point clearly
in any one direction.[/quote][/quote]
@Ernesto: That’s not what that BMJ paper says. I think you are misreading it.
[quote]The reason water fluoridation is so bitterly contested is that the science doesn’t point clearly
in any one direction. [/quote]
Ernesto
I wish this were true, but I simply do not believe that this is the case. I believe it is because of people’s fears and
their underlying philosophy regarding public health and public policy in general. Several factors of the debate to date lead me to this conclusion.
1) If opponents of fluoridation of the water supply truly believed in the toxicity of fluoride, why would several of those who are the most adamant have suggested providing drops, washes, or even tablets to the economically disadvantaged if desired ?
2) If they truly believe it is a toxin, why is no one calling for its removal from the current water supply ?
3) Why has not a single opponent made any mention of the choice of a number of European countries to add fluoride to their salt ( also ingested) as an acknowledgement of the potential benefit of fluoride even though those countries have chosen not to add it to the water supply ?
It seems to me that what this is really centered around is that the opponents feel, erroneously that they are being “forced” to consume something that they do not want which is clearly not the case since other water sources are readily available. What is not readily available to our entire population is dental care. Thus we are choosing to “force” a certain segment of our population to not benefit from potential benefits based on nothing more than their inability to pay.
medwoman: [i]I believe it is because of people’s fears and their underlying philosophy regarding public health and public policy in general.[/i]
Some of the criticisms I have read of drinking water fluoridation also make me think that there is a general misunderstanding of chemistry. In reading such criticisms elsewhere online I have seen this sort of argument show up with some frequency — hydrogen fluoride is a powerful and dangerous acid, therefore fluoride is dangerous. Or chlorine gas was used as a weapon in WWI, therefore chlorine is toxic. Or methyl bromide is a bad pesticide, therefore bromides should be avoided at all costs.
Ernesto
Again thank you for your references. I read both the Cheng article and the Connett commentary and at the end am left pretty much where I started out. There is evidence of benefit from fluoride in the prevention of caries.
There is evidence of harm in the form of fluorosis. There is much speculation about the potential harmful effects of fluoride on other body systems. And as Alan Pryor pointed out, no conclusive evidence of such harm.
I have followed the issue of osteoporosis and fluoride for the past 30 years when I was a medical student.
What we know is that there is an increased risk of bone fragility and osteoporotic fractures in women dosed at 30 – 50 mg day. What we also know is that there is not evidence of this risk at the proposed level.
I believe that what much of this comes down to is that those who do not believe in public health measures from a philosophic point of view are pulling in as much suspicion and innuendo as possible to achieve a net negative emotion around this issue. The legitimate science would support the weighing of caries prevention vs fluorosis.
I do not have any problem with someone weighing fluorosis risk over caries prevention. I do not share that value placement, but feel that everyone is entitled to their own set of priorities. What I do not think should be given equal consideration is a whole host of maybes, what ifs and potentially coulds offered as scientific evidence of equal weight.
Brian, Medwoman,
[quote]What this study adds
A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low
Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported
The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water
An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found[/quote]
Above is a direct quote from the summary of the article.[url]http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855[/url]
The key phrase here is [i][b]A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low
[/b][/i]. Those are very powerful words in a study of this type. They indicate that any opinion on the matter is a Rohrshach test. If this is the case, how do we know it’s safe – or at least that there is more benefit than harm? We don’t. In that case the burden of proof is on the pro-fluoridation side to make the case for an overwhelming benefit. Given the controversy over the subject and the many cities that are now rolling back fluoridation ([url]http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/communities_2010/[/url]) , they have failed to make their case.
Brian, Medwoman,
[quote]What this study adds
A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low
Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported
The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water
An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found[/quote]
Above is a direct quote from the summary of the article.[url]http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855[/url]
The key phrase here is [i][b]A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low
[/b][/i]. Those are very powerful words in a study of this type. They indicate that any opinion on the matter is a Rohrshach test. If this is the case, how do we know it’s safe – or at least that there is more benefit than harm? We don’t. In that case the burden of proof is on the pro-fluoridation side to make the case for an overwhelming benefit. Given the controversy over the subject and the many cities that are now rolling back fluoridation ([url]http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/communities_2010/[/url]) , they have failed to make their case.
@Ernesto: I wouldn’t put too much credence or emphasis on that line (“…the quality of the evidence is low”). That appears to have been written by an editor, as a description of the article, and is not part of the article itself.
In another characterization of the article (that I found by going through the UC Davis library website), the editors wrote “low to moderate”:
Quote:
Public water fluoridation has been debated ever since the first schemes were introduced over 50 years ago. A number of areas in the United Kingdom have artificial water fluoridation schemes, and the government recently decided that an up to date review of the efficacy and safety of water fluoride was needed to inform future policy. The systematic review by McDonagh et al (p 855) found that water fluoride does seem to reduce the incidence of caries, but this reduction comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth), which shows a dose-response with increased water fluoride concentration. The overall quality of the evidence, however, was low to moderate. No association was found with any other negative effect.
Unquote
The original title of the article appears to have been: “Fluoridation reduces caries but increases mottled teeth”.
[quote]In another characterization of the article (that I found by going through the UC Davis library website), the editors wrote “low to moderate”: [/quote]
Yeah, but that’s on both sides, cavity reduction and fluorosis.
The evidence is weak, that’s why the issue is so contentious.
Nobody debates water chlorination, for example, because the evidence for the benefits over the costs is strong.
[quote]Ernesto
Again thank you for your references. I read both the Cheng article and the Connett commentary and at the end am left pretty much where I started out. There is evidence of benefit from fluoride in the prevention of caries.
There is evidence of harm in the form of fluorosis. There is much speculation about the potential harmful effects of fluoride on other body systems. And as Alan Pryor pointed out, no conclusive evidence of such harm.
I have followed the issue of osteoporosis and fluoride for the past 30 years when I was a medical student.
What we know is that there is an increased risk of bone fragility and osteoporotic fractures in women dosed at 30 – 50 mg day. What we also know is that there is not evidence of this risk at the proposed level.
I believe that what much of this comes down to is that those who do not believe in public health measures from a philosophic point of view are pulling in as much suspicion and innuendo as possible to achieve a net negative emotion around this issue. The legitimate science would support the weighing of caries prevention vs fluorosis.
I do not have any problem with someone weighing fluorosis risk over caries prevention. I do not share that value placement, but feel that everyone is entitled to their own set of priorities. What I do not think should be given equal consideration is a whole host of maybes, what ifs and potentially coulds offered as scientific evidence of equal weight.[/quote]
Sorry to have found this so late in the debate. Great read–plenty of documentation.http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html
Here’s another update:
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_23196504/fluoridation-endorsed-city-water-supplies-by-yolo-supervisors
Re: Medwoman [This] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7258:commentary-unimpressed-why-im-not-moved-by-the-fluoridation-outrage&catid=60:water&Itemid=92&cpage=60#comment-181714[/url])
I don’t see how you can objectively evaluate the literature if you don’t see the logical flaws in your statements.
[quote]1) If opponents of fluoridation of the water supply truly believed in the toxicity of fluoride, why would several of those who are the most adamant have suggested providing drops, washes, or even tablets to the economically disadvantaged if desired ?
2) If they truly believe it is a toxin, why is no one calling for its removal from the current water supply ?
3) Why has not a single opponent made any mention of the choice of a number of European countries to add fluoride to their salt ( also ingested) as an acknowledgement of the potential benefit of fluoride even though those countries have chosen not to add it to the water supply ?[/quote]
Evaluating the literature is not just a matter of having data. The Argument needs to make sense. To tell whether an argument is valid you need logic.
How about you specify a paper you believe to be good, and see if I can tell you what the flaws are?
[quote]”Despite my fence-sitting on this issue, I’m unmoved by the choice issue. I don’t see this as a medication per se. I see it more akin to added chlorination to the drinking water – you are adding a chemical for a purpose.”
[/quote]
A chemical that’s essentially toxic waste.
[quote]Where Does the Fluoride Added to Water Come from?
The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are known as “silicofluorides” (i.e., hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Since these silicofluorides undergo no purification procedures, they can contain elevated levels of arsenic — moreso than any other water treatment chemical. In addition, recent research suggests that the addition of silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, particularly among residents who live in homes with old pipes.[/quote]
— [url]www.fluoridealert.org/faq[/url]
And WOW, they’ve sure done a heck of a job marketing their plan to dispose of it, too. The gullibility of the educated classes around here is flabbergasting.
[quote]What Countries Fluoridate Their Water?
Most developed nations in the world have rejected fluoridation, including 97% of western Europe. The United States, which fluoridates more than 70% of its water supplies, is an exception to this rule. According to the British Fluoridation Society, there are more people drinking artificially fluoridated water in the United States than all other countries combined.”[/quote]
— [url]www.fluoridealert.org/faq[/url]
Do y’all trust Harvard researchers? Reuters seems to.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-2012+PRN20120724[/url]
And HuffPo:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html[/url]
And please peruse the long-running top dog activist site, [url]www.fluoridealert.org[/url], which has really refined their delivery of relevant facts, so as to point out first and foremost:
[quote]”quick fact:
More people drink fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
quick fact:
No difference in tooth decay between F and NF countries.
quick fact:
There is no need to swallow fluoride — it works topically.
“[/quote]