Fluoride & Cancer Quackery

One of the many arguments offered in the never-ending manufactroversy surrounding water fluoridation is that it causes cancer. This unsupported claim is nothing new and while it has been addressed many times it continues to periodically pop up and make the rounds again and again. In the age of the internet misinformation spreads quickly and myths die hard. The “natural health” blogosphere often capitalizes on this cycle of misinformation, dredging up outdated scare stories and spinning them as accepted fact. One such article from Natural Society reads,

In 1977, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis.

This extraordinary claim originated with a paper on the subject of fluoride and cancer, titled “Fluoridation and cancer, age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation”, which was originally put forward in 1975 and then again in 1977 by Dr. Dean Burk and fellow fluoridation opponent John Yiamouyiannis¹. However, the paper was not well received by the majority of scientists at the time and the paper’s methodology was criticized, such as for failure to adjust for important variables. Numerous subsequent scientific studies from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia,  and New Zealand, including a  review of over 50 published studies contradicted Burk’s conclusion and found no evidence to support such an outrageous claim. The CDC has since been quoted saying,

at this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.

The American Cancer Society has also gone on record stating, “Scientific studies show no connection between cancer rates in humans and adding fluoride to drinking water.”  But rather than listen to the scientific community, fluoridation opponents prefer to stay in their echo-chamber with select fringe “experts” where they can build their conspiratorial narratives.

Anti-fluoridation activists love to cite Dr. Burk, who has gone so far as to say that “fluoridation is a form of public mass murder.” As the past head of the National Cancer Institute’s Cytochemistry Sector² from 1938 to 1974, Burk is often cited as an unquestionable expert. However, Dr. Burk is an outlier on this issue in the scientific community. While Dr. Burk had a long scientific career and was notable as a co-discoverer of both biotin and a MRI prototype, a closer look at his career raises serious questions about his credibility. Burk’s approach to fluoridation was one of an activist more than a scientist. The self-correcting model of science advances on the basis of new evidence, yet Burk was never able to accept the mounting evidence against his favored hypothesis.

Burk’s quackery did not end at his anti-fluoridation activities however, he was also known for his support of the now disproven and potentially dangerous cancer “cure” laetrile. While in initial in vitro experiments Burk claimed to see “cancer cells dying off like flies“, these results are now understood to be very misleading and subsequent in vivo experimentation did not support the claims made for laetrile. A 2011 Cochrane Review of over 63 papers found “no reliable evidence for the alleged effects of laetrile or amygdalin for curative effects in cancer patients.” A common theme of Burk’s career was an over-confidence in preliminary data, while having a lack of respect for peer review and scientific criticism³.

Unfortunately even distinguished scientists are not above quackery. This can happen when a researcher strays outside their field of expertise, as is common among those cited by promoters of pseudoscience, though it can even occur with respected researchers within fields related to their expertise. Linus Pauling was a Nobel Laureate and admired chemist, yet in his later life he became a major proponent of high-dose vitamin C as a cancer cure, a worthless “treatment”. Peter Duesberg, a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, may be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for his promotion of HIV/AIDs denial. Luc Montagnier, who was awarded the Nobel prize for co-discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has gone down the rabbit hole with his own crank theory of the true cause of autism. Unfortunately there is no shortage of once respectable-researchers-turned-cranks. This is why it is important to consider the scientific consensus formed by relevant experts, rather than the statements of outspoken advocates on the fringe, even though they may have a degree and the air of authority.

Notes:
1. Yiamouyiannis was a dedicated anti-fluoridation advocate and author and his work is held in high regard among fluoridation opponents. Like Burk, Yiamouyiannis was not content to be a single issue crank, he also denied a link between HIV and AIDs as well as opposing vaccination. In 2000 he died of colorectal cancer, he had chosen to forgo science-based medicine and instead sought “treatment” in Mexico in the form of vitamins and laetrile.

2. NOT head of all NCI research as is sometimes touted.

3. Burk also developed of what he considered a “safer” cigarette filter that incorporated charcoal. Evidence of its effectiveness was lacking however.

Further Reading:
Fluoride & Heart Disease?
Fluoride & Brain Damage
Fluoride & the Brain: Déjà Vu
Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!
Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies
Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ
How do scientists become cranks and doctors quacks? by David Gorski

About these ads

Tags: ,

133 Responses to “Fluoride & Cancer Quackery”

  1. Michael Baker Says:

    this is 2nd time bringing this up; why is it searching ‘pineal gland’ or even DMT there’s’ nothing here? How can you have intelligent discussion re: fluoride without the ‘Cradle of Soul’ being mentioned? Who in the Cabal of Big Fluoride are you?

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      And this is my second time answering, if you had a problem with the first answer I assume you would have replied to it, however since you did not I will assume you simply didn’t not see it,

      Hey Michael,
      What specific claim about fluoride and the pineal gland are you concerned about and what evidence is there to support that claim? I’m happy to address specific claims especially if there is relevant research to look at. For now I’ll post the response the ADA gives regarding fluorides effects on the pineal gland in a FAQ guide that they wrote.

      The pineal gland is an endocrine gland located in the brain which produces melatonin.(251) Endocrine glands secrete their products into the bloodstream and body tissues and help regulate many kinds of bodily functions. The hormone, melatonin, plays a role in sleep, aging and reproduction.

      A single researcher has published one study in a peer reviewed scientific journal regarding fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland. The purpose of the study was to discover whether fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland of older adults. This limited study, conducted on only 11 cadavers whose age at death was 82 years, indicated that fluoride deposited in the pineal gland was significantly linked to the amount of calcium in the pineal gland. It would not be unexpected to see higher levels of calcium in the pineal gland of older individuals as this would be considered part of a normal aging process. As discussed in Question 22, approximately 99% of the fluoride present in the body is associated with hard or calcified tissues.(192) The study concluded fluoride levels in the pineal gland were not indicators of long term fluoride exposure.(252)

      The same researcher has theorized in unpublished reports posted on the internet that the accumulation of fluoride in children’s pineal gland leads to an earlier onset of puberty. However, the researcher notes that there is no verification that fluoride accumulates in children’s pineal glands. Moreover, a study conducted in Newburgh (fluoridated) and Kingston (non-fluoridated), New York found no statistical significance between the onset of menstruation for girls living in a fluoridated verses non-fluoridated area.(253)

      192. Whitford GM. The physiological and toxicological characteristics of fluoride. J Dent Res 1990;69(Spec Iss):539-49

      251. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Pineal gland. Access December 29, 2004

      252. Luke J. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Res 2001;35:125-28.

      253. Schlesinger ER, Overton DE, Chase HC, Cantwell KT. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII: pediatric findings after ten years. J Am Dent Assoc 1956;52:296-306.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      How can you have intelligent discussion re: fluoride without the ‘Cradle of Soul’ being mentioned?

      Because the point where things such as souls are invoked is the point where intelligent science-based discussion ends.

    • Lawrence Says:

      Right you are Michael Baker (Who in the Cabal of Big Fluoride are you?)
      Obvious shill, vegan indeed!

      • Been Says:

        Could you explain to me how it is obvious that skepticalvegan is a shill? I am not understanding what you are trying to say.

  2. michael baker Says:

    come on..You khow what I’m getting at: DMT..I’ll ask another way; Why aren’t you addressig the Pineal Gland & what ‘science-based’ studies indicate re: fluoride effects on DMT production?.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      Why don’t you link to these studies, because a search of Pubmed for fluoride and DMT comes up empty handed. And yes I do know what your getting at, and it is probably the least scientific and most “out there” claim by anti-fluoridationists. I’m sorry but the claim that fluoride prevents us from being able to “consciously astral travel, explore other dimensions, foresee the future and receive communications from loving dimensional beings” is simply not a scientific claim and truthfully I see no reason to treat it seriously any more than claims that fluorescent lightbulbs suppress humanities latent psychic powers.

      In the end I have limited time, I blog about what interests me and whats current. Most of my fluoride posts have been driven by news items that were recent at the time of writing. In general the Seat of the Soul claim is one relegated to conspiracy theorist and new ager forums, even the journalists that fall for the other anti-fluoride propaganda tend to not take the Cradle of the Soul stuff seriously. If a news article pops up in the popular press making a clear claims in regards to DMT and fluoride then I’ll address it but for now its not really worth my time.

  3. michael baker Says:

    appreciate you replying.; but i never mentioned ‘Astral’ stuff & pardon me for use of ‘Cradle of the Soul”. I am trying in my layman way to stick to ‘science’…So- am i to believe natural DMT isn’t important & fluoride doesn’t effect the Pineal abiility to produce it?..re: links suggested-..i’ve been around on both sides..but asking you….mainly because Pineal & DMT aren’t found within your views.
    bottom line to me; Scientists aen’t for sure what’s going on w/Pineal/fluoride/DMT.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      appreciate you replying.; but i never mentioned ‘Astral’ stuff & pardon me for use of ‘Cradle of the Soul”.

      That quote was from an article you “liked” on your Facebook page called How to Clean up the Pineal Gland. Since you wouldn’t give me a specific claim to address I had to do a little digging. Since you asked about the subject and had an article about the subject on your Facebook I figured that it was probably what you were talkign about. So once again if you are not talkign about literal souls and psychic type phenomenon, then what specifically is the claim?

      So- am i to believe natural DMT isn’t important & fluoride doesn’t effect the Pineal abiility to produce it?

      There actually is currently no good evidence that the Pineal gland produces DMT. This cultural belief, popularized by Joe Rogan among others, is based on the work of Rick Strassman who even admits that his work is based on speculation and is “not proven”. If you are interested I recommend this article that talks more about the myth.

  4. michael baker Says:

    of course it’s ” not worth your time ” your use of Astral / New Age / Conspiracy, etc. is nothing but a form of ridicule-seems t’me…i’m getting that feeling you’re searching for the truth of it, But Protecting What You Already Believe to Be True…it’s an Ego Thingy..& perhaps your prison..Which you have the right to stay in of course

  5. michael baker Says:

    appreciate the homework assignment

  6. skepticalvegan Says:

    The concern that fluoridation might cause cancer was recently exhaustively analyzed (systematic review) by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee which on October 12, 2011 found fluoride does NOT cause cancer by a vote of 7-0.

    This new expert analysis joins many other systematic reviews of benefits & safety by expert committees.

    California Carcinogen Identification Committee (2011).
    European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (2011).
    Department of Public Health, Scotland, UK (2008).
    Health Canada Report on Fluoride and Human Health (2008).
    National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government (2007).
    National Research Council, U.S.A. (1993, 2006)
    World Health Organization (1994, 1996, 2006).
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service (2003).
    International Programme on Chemical Safety, W.H.O. (2002)
    Forum on Fluoridation, Ireland (2002).
    Medical Research Council, U.K. (2002)
    U.S. Guide to Community Preventive Services (2002).
    U.S. Surgeon General’s Report (2000).
    University of York, U.K. (2000)
    Institute of Medicine, U.S.A. (1999)
    U.S. Public Health Service (1991).
    New York State Department of Health (1990).

    • geeksquad1001 Says:

      Ohh so science is voting now huh? like psychiatry? lol and stop reading off the ADA ‘fact’ sheet which is a propaganda b.s. no science involved in it what so ever. Non of the supposedly “peer-reviewed” studies have any creditability what so ever! The York review which review all the studies in the ADA fact sheet and more, systematic scientific review of fluoridation, found that NONE of the studies purporting to demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce tooth decay were of grade A status, i.e. high quality, bias unlikely!
      lol everything you have said here is straight off the ADA fact sheet stop acting like you have done more then ten minutes of research!

      • Been Says:

        Ohh so arguing is just saying someone is wrong now? like being a baby? lol and stop making stuff up off the top of your head that’s crazy b.s. that no one should ever have to deal with what so ever. Non of the supposedly “smart things to post publicly on the internet” that you made have any creditability what so ever! The one thing you pulled out of Your Ass which is stupid like everything else you’ve said, found that NONE of what you said was smart, you were just being contradictory and stymieing forward progress in intelligence, i.e. you’re dumb, very likely!
        lol everything you said here is completely made up and stop pretending saying “nope you’re wrong” is better than ten minutes of research

  7. Dental Fluorosis « Skeptical Vegan Says:

    [...] Vu Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out! Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies Fluoride & Cancer Quackery Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ Like this:LikeBe the first to like [...]

  8. Izzy Says:

    Like! Shared in facebook. Good and relatively ordered debunk of this semi-prevalent myth.

    I would like to add, for the sake of fellow DMT zealouts, that I recently looked through some of the more important DMT research papers, and, though I had a hard time accepting it, all evidence points to DMT being in the body merely in trace amounts.

    It is also found to bind to certain trace amine receptors, and there’s hardly activity, if none, involved with the 5-HT2A receptors. In other words, there is never enough endogenous DMT present at the active sites for it to cause effects that resemble even 10 to 20mg of smoked DMT, let alone intense visionary states.

    Last but not least, it was also discovered that DMT is most likely to be the result, and not the cause, of a wide array of altered states caused by mental illness. Endogenous DMT acts as an anxiolytic, it reduces stress and makes one calmer. It suppresses, rather than aggrevates, psychotic hallucinations.

    I hope I’m portraying the research results correctly. I’m a composer, not a scientist. But most of it can already be read pretty much literally in the abstracts on pubget.

    • geeksquad1001 Says:

      lol what was debunked? that fluoride increases risk of cancer? hardly!

      http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

      Heres ACTUALLY RECENT AND BY RECENT I MEAN WITH IN THE LAST 10 YEARS STUDIES THAT SHOW FLUORIDE CAUSES GENE DAMAGE LEADING TO BIRTH DEFECTS AND CANCER. And not 20 year old biased reviews by pro fluoride promoter panels!

      “In rat hippocampal neurons F caused DNA damage during DNA synthesis and caused cell cycle arrest during S-phase and enhances expression of NF-kappaB a gene product related to stress response”
      “In human embryo hepatocytes F caused DNA damage, apoptosis (cell suicide) and p53 cancer gene expression.”

      http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/cummins-Drinking-Water-Fluoridation-is-Genotoxic-and-Teratogenic.pdf

      The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.126, lists 791 chemicals that are according to California Law Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials. Of the 791 chemicals listed over 39 are FLUORIDE COMPOUNDS but specifically #384 ON THE LIST is hydrofluosilicic acid, fluosilicic acid and #674 ON THE LIST is sodium fluoride!

      http://www.keepers-of-the-well.org/product_pdfs/Fluorides_Classified.pdf

      “Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). As noted above, osteosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk.” P. 286 — NRC Review: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, 2006

      • skepticalvegan Says:

        lol what was debunked? that fluoride increases risk of cancer? hardly!

        http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

        I already addressed the National Federation of Federal Employees letter in my previous comment. The union represents only 1,500 employees in Washington. The majority of the membership are not scientists and have no expertise in fluoride issues, further the National Federation of Federal Employees is not a scientific body that performs research. It was also a vote passed by only 20 members…

        The basis for an allegation that the EPA opposes fluoridation occurred on July 2, 1997, when 20 EPA employees who opposed fluoridation attended a meeting of Chapter 280 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). At that time, EPA had approximately 18,000 employees, and Chapter 280 of NFFE represented 1000-1600 of them. Because those 20 EPA employees constituted a majority of the union members attending the meeting, they were able to adopt a resolution opposing California’s mandatory fluoridation law. At a subsequent press conference they claimed that NFFE adopted the resolution.

          Within a few days, Chapter officers issued an official statement declaring that the press conference was held without their knowledge or consent.

        Subsequent to that, two employees implied that EPA opposed fluoridation. Neither NFFE nor its successor, the National Treasury Employees’ Union, has published an official position on fluoridation. The lack of all pertinent details, has mislead some of the public into thinking that EPA is opposed to water fluoridation.

      • WylieFox Says:

        Thank you, thank you, thank you GeekSquad, for serving up a solid dish of obvious evidence of the detrimental effects of fluoride in our biological systems. Anyone who might believe in this skeptical vegan’s sad adherence to her controllers propaganda, just research the links posted by GeekSquad. Win for science and humanity!

  9. Paul Martin Jordan Says:

    don’t suppose that wothless treatment also included vitiamin A as well linus pauling claimed could “offset” the effects of cancer for up to 20 years.Linus subsiquently died from cancer…i believe in his 70′s i take it he might have got the idea from a book called “get well” written in the late 40′s by a man who should truly get the credit for the term “chemical inbalance” but i’m sure hasen’t … shrinks seem to like buzzwords like politicians like sound bites. veg on dude.

  10. Paul Martin Jordan Says:

    they did say meat and eggs help offset the effects of floride… i wonder if you knew that a small doses of rat poison when withdrawn can cause death; with no chemical tracer. saw that on a detective show (i “know” their TV/motion picture researchers aren’t always spot on) you writting’s great..i think you’re just falling a little short on the truly technical stuff and things unfamiliar as far as their histories. good luck on all this i’m sure you’re making money as well on this. so good for you…we all need a bit of it unfortunatly in order to survive. doubt i’ll see either of my posts (that always works on dear abby) ciao’~pj

  11. Carl Says:

    Fluoride is a known carcinogen, costs a lot to dispose of as its classified as toxic waste, so they put it in our water and im supposed to trust what they say about it?? I’ll go fluoride free, thanks.

  12. Carl Says:

    “There is now a better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental decay. What little benefit fluoridated water may still provide is derived primarily through topical means (after the teeth erupt and come in contact with fluorides in the oral cavity). Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to be effective. It is not an essential nutrient. Nor should it be considered a desirable “supplement” for children living in non-fluoridated areas. Fluoride ingestion delays tooth eruption and this may account for some of the differences seen in the past between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (i.e. dental decay is simply postponed). No fluoridation study has ever separated out the systemic effects of fluoride. Even if there were a systemic benefit from ingestion of fluoride, it would be miniscule and clinically irrelevant. The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in non-fluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether.”

    Its not a question of whether its proven to cause cancer, its a question of why we need it in the first place.

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/limeback/

  13. Mike G Says:

    Good discussions here! I read the post. But not all the comments yet. I understand what Michael is getting at for sure! I will say one thing to skepticalvegan in response to “Because the point where things such as souls are invoked is the point where intelligent science-based discussion ends.”

    I’m afraid you might be thinking naively with that sentiment. I don’t mean to insult. I use the word “naive” in a sense that you don’t know what you don’t know. I don’t claim to know everything, so I know I can be naive too. But what I do know, is that science has been intelligently researching and discussing the soul, as that relates to what happens with our consciousness when we die. If you don’t like the term soul, you can just say consciousness. It’s pretty much the same thing in my book. Soul is describing our consciousness, or “being” that is separate from our physical body. Sure science can say our consciousness is just synapses and electrons or whatever firing off in our brain. But what happens to that knowingness/knowledge or consciousness when our brain supposedly dies? What happens when our body dies and the blood no longer is supporting that life or transmission of electrons or whatever. When we die, our consciousness theoretically ceases to exist. Or does it?

    If you’re not sure in that answer, or even if you are sure of that answer, look into Dr. Jeffrey Long, Ramond Moody MD PhD, and the NDERF organization just in case. Watch “Afterlife” online or Netflix or Amazon Prime.

    If you’re too skeptical (or too sure in your beliefs) to take an hour, then look into this, at least take 15 minutes and check this out and let me know what you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwyVFW9kT8k

    Afterlife:

    http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/afterlife

    or

    http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Ramond%20Moody%20MD%20PhD&ref=dp_dvd_bl_act&search-alias=dvd

    or Netflix.

    If one is so hard headed to dismiss so many people, then I understanding the need to be a doubting thomas. I was once one too.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      I’m quite unconvinced by NDEs. Anyways this is gettign pretty far off topic at this point but it should suffice to say, I am not a dualist. The mind is what the brain does, and when the brain dies it ceases to exist.

      • Mike G Says:

        For sure, way off topic. Did you take any time to look into the things I mentioned or watched any of the videos? They seem pretty convincing to me. Or are you still hard headed to dismiss?

  14. Robert JeanmennDDS Says:

    As a dentist…i have 2 populations. 1 with fluoride in the water, 1 without. The kids with fluoride routinely have 0-2 cavities over their first 10 years of life. Those without average 7-10 cavities! Can you imagine sitting in a dental chair at age 5 for that!….I have seen some kids that have had 17 cavities in 1 visit! Now I have only seen a population of about 3000 patients. Guess what…no one has bone cancer. Up the street is a 13,000 square foot pediatric dental clinic….that has 20,000 patients. The reason, they serve the 200 miles in every direction of Rural PA. Most of which has no fluoride. These poor kids have to be shipped here and sedated because they have so many cavities…its a shame. PS. Ever think that dentists look for cancer too? If fluoride caused cancer…why would the ADA want it? And if the ADA had bad motivations then they would say to stop fluoride…as it would make all of us dentists rich…..so why would the ADA want fluoride in water…cus its the right thing to do.

  15. Margarita Hinksoni Says:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202190426AAqbUsJ

    Best Answer – Chosen by Asker
    The facts on fluoride listed below are fully referenced for anyone doubting the science behind the clear evidence that fluoride in public water supplies, toothpastes etc is detrimental to human and animal health
    Fluoride FACTS

    • Fluoride Is A Carcinogen
    Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.
    1. Maurer, et. al., Fluoride an equivocal carcinogen J. National Cancer Institute 82, 1118-26, 1990
    Source(s):
    WW

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      Numerous subsequent scientific studies from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, including a review of over 50 published studies contradict the claim that fluoridation causes cancer.

      A possible relationship between fluoridated water and cancer risk has been debated for years. The debate resurfaced in 1990 when a study by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, showed an increased number of osteosarcomas (bone tumors) in male rats given water high in fluoride for 2 years (4). However, other studies in humans and in animals have not shown an association between fluoridated water and cancer (5–7).

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

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

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

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

      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health Service report on fluoride benefits and risks. JAMA 1991; 266(8):1061–1067.
      2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Achievements in public health, 1900–1999: fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1999; 48(41):933–940.
      3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (August 2010). 2008 Water Fluoridation Statistics. Retrieved August 10, 2011.
      4. Bucher JR, Hejtmancik MR, Toft JD, et al. Results and conclusions of the National Toxicology Program’s rodent carcinogenicity studies with sodium fluoride. International Journal of Cancer 1991; 48(5):733–737.
      5. Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride (February 1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved August 10, 2011.
      6. National Research Council, Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Carcinogenicity of fluoride. In: Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.
      7. Kim FM, Hayes C, Williams PL, et al. An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma. Journal of Dental Research 2011; 90(10):1171–1176.

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

      • geeksquad1001 Says:

        lol! nice work there! Way to prove nothing! First off 1990 study that showed increased risk of cancer and how in 1991 a panel screwed the results and committed scientific FRAUD to down play the results of the study! http://www.fluoridation.com/cancer2.htm
        Heres real studies first hand studies not reviews by the CDC or ADA or pro fluoride panels! Like what your entire comment was. These are studies done by scientists!

        http://www.npwa.org.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=37%3Ato-be-categorised&id=100%3Afluoride-and-genetic-damage-and-cancer&option=com_content&Itemid=92

        Heres a letter from the EPAs Union which is all the scientists, chemists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. calling for a ban of fluoride because of the harm it causes!

        the CDC, who in 1999 and 2001 acknowledged that the mechanisms of fluoride benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth.
        that was taken from this — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 50(RR14): 1-42.

        In the July 2000, peer-reviewed cover story of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) clarified for every dentist in America that ingestion of fluoride does not provide any significant reduction in the incidence of tooth decay—that any beneficial dental effect is as a result of topical application directly to the tooth.

        The CDC and ADA clearly state that ingesting fluoride is pointless and has no effect on tooth decay but they still promote water fluoridation….So anything that comes from either of them is not credible!

        Do you have any other credible sources that refute these findings that fluoride does increase risk of cancer?

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          First off 1990 study that showed increased risk of cancer and how in 1991 a panel screwed the results and committed scientific FRAUD to down play the results of the study!

          the problem he is you are hanging your hat on a small number of animal studies while ignoring a larger amount of human studies (as well as ignoring negative animal studies)

          Five carcinogenicity studies in animals have been reported in the biomedical literature. Three studies, conducted before 1970 and interpreted as negative, had significant methodological limitations, as judged by current standards of experimental design. Two subsequent studies were conducted using current standards to evaluate the carcinogenicity of sodium fluoride in experimental animals.

          One of the two carcinogenicity studies was conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). This peer-reviewed study provided sodium fluoride in drinking water to rats and mice and determined the occurrence of tumor formation many different organ systems. The peer review panel concluded that, “Under the conditions of these 2-year dosed water studies, there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male F344/N rats, based on the occurrence of a small number of osteosarcomas in dosed animals. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity in female F344/N rats receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm (0, 11, 45, 79 ppm fluoride) in drinking water for 2 years. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male or female mice receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm in drinking water for 2 years.” The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride concurs with this conclusion.

          The other carcinogenicity study was sponsored by the Procter and Gamble Company using Cr:CD (Sprague-Dawley) rats and Crl:CD-1 (ICR) mice both treated with 0, 4, 10, or 25 milligrams/kilogram/day sodium fluoride added to a low fluoride-basal diet. A second control group received powdered rodent chow. There was no evidence of malignant tumors associated with sodium fluoride in mice and rats of either sex in the Procter and Gamble study. While there were two osteosarcomas in the low dose female rats, one osteosarcoma in a high dose male rat, and one fibroblastic sarcoma in a mid-dose male rat, these findings in treated animals were not statistically different from controls. Male and female mice in the study did have a statistically significant increase in benign bone tumors (osteomas). The significance of a Type C retrovirus, detected in the osteomas, remains to be determined. Osteomas and osteosarcomas are different in anatomical site and clinical course. The FDA also noted difficulty in assessing the dose-related aspects of the osteomas in mice (see page 75-6). Furthermore, osteomas and osteosarcomas are so rare normally in rodents that the relationship between these tumors cannot be accurately stated.

          When the NTP and the Procter and Gamble studies are combined, a total of eight individual sex/species groups are available for analysis.

            Seven of these groups showed no significant evidence of malignant tumor formation.

          One of these groups, male rats from the NTP study, showed “equivocal” evidence of carcinogenicity, which is defined by NTP as a marginal increase in neoplasms—i.e., osteosarcomas—that may be chemically related. Taken together, the two animal studies available at this time fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer.

          There have been over 50 human epidemiology studies of the relationship between water fluoridation and cancer. Epidemiological studies of fluoride usually attempt to identify statistical associations between cancer rates and county- or city-wide patterns of water fluoridation. Expert panels which reviewed this international body of literature agree that there is no credible evidence of an association between either natural fluoride or adjusted fluoride in drinking water and human cancer (LARC, 1982; Knox, 1985). Interpretation of these studies is limited by the inability to measure individual fluoride exposures or to measure other individual predictors of cancer risk, such as smoking or occupational exposures.

          In March of 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) updated and expanded an earlier analysis of cancer deaths, by county in the United States, to determine whether there is or is not an association between cancer and fluoride in drinking water. The new studies evaluated an additional 16 years of cancer mortality data, and also examined patterns of cancer incidence between 1973 and 1987 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program cancer registries. SEER, an NCI sponsored network of population-based cancer incidence registries, started in 1973 and represents about 10 percent of the U.S. population. The SEER registries were used to obtain incidence data on all cancers, with special emphasis placed on trends in osteosarcoma. Because mortality data do not contain information on tumor-specific pathology, analysis of osteosarcomas is limited to the incidence data.

          The NCI study identified no trends in cancer risk which could be attributed to the introduction of fluoride into drinking water. The study examined nationwide moronity data and incidence data from counties in Iowa and the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area. There were no consistent differences in the trends in cancer mortality rates among males and females living in counties having initiated relative mortality rates from cancer, including cancer of the bones and joints, were similar after 20-35 years of fluoridation as they were in the years preceding fluoridation. In addition, there was no relationship between the introduction and duration of fluoridation and the patterns of cancer incidence rates, including those of the bone and joint, and the subset of osteosarcomas (Appendix E). For example, there were 91 observed cases of osteosarcoma in the fluoridated areas, when 93 cases were expected based on rates in non-fluoridated areas.

          The NCI also conducted a more detailed evaluation of osteosarcomas using nationwide age-adjusted incidence data from the entire SEER database for the years 1973-1987 (Appendix F). Osteosarcoma is a rare form of bone cancer, the cause of which is under study. Approximately 750 newly diagnosed cases occur each year in the United States, representing about 0.1 percent of all reported cancers. Between two time periods, 1973-1980 and 1981-1987, there was an unexplained increase in the annual incidence rates of osteosarcoma in young males under age 20 from 3.6 cases per 1,000,000 people (88 registry cases) to 5.5 cases per 1,000,000 people (100 registry cases). This compares to a decrease in young females of the same age group from 3.8 cases per 1,000,000 people (87 registry cases) to 3.7 cases per 1,000,000 people (63 registry cases). The amount of increase observed in young males was greater in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas. Although the reason for the increase in young males remains to be clarified, an extensive analysis reveals that it is unrelated to the introduction and duration of fluoridation.

          Heres real studies first hand studies not reviews by the CDC or ADA or pro fluoride panels! Like what your entire comment was. These are studies done by scientists!

          Lets take a look shall we…

          References:
          (1) Klein W, et al . DNA repair and environmental substances. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Bader-und Klimaheilkunde
          (2) Mohamed A, Chandler ME. Cytological effects of sodium fluoride on mice. Fluoride . 1982; 15 (3): 110-18
          (3) Mukerjee RN, Sobels FH. The effect of sodium fluoride and idoacetamide on mutation induction by X-irradiation in mature spermatozoa of drosophila. Mutation Res . 1968; 6: 217- 25.
          (4) Vogel E. Strong antimutagenic effects of fluoride on mutation induction by trenimon and 1- phenyl-3,3dimethyltriazine in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutation Res . 1973; 20: 339-52.
          (5) Jagiello G, Lin J-S. Sodium fluoride as potential mutagen in mammalian eggs. Arch Environ Hlth . 1974; 29: 230-5.
          (6) Yiamouyiannis JA, Burk D. Fluoridation of public water systems and the cancer death rate in humans. Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biologists and Chemists and the American Society of Experimental Biologists. June 1976.
          (7) Jachimczak D, Skotarczak B. The effect of fluorine and lead ions on the chromosomes of human leucocytes in vitro. Genetica Polonica . 1978; 19 (3): 353-7
          (8) Yiamouyannis JA. Fluoride: The Aging Factor . Health Action Press, Delaware, Ohio. 1983.
          (9) Cohn PD. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males . N J Dept of Hlth, Trenton, New Jersey. Nov 8, 1992. . 1977; 24 (3): 218-223.

          …I’m not too impressed with that “evidence” of fluoride and human cancer risk.
          Also, citing Burk and Yiamouyiannis…? Lol.

          Heres a letter from the EPAs Union which is all the scientists, chemists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.

          National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050, representing only 1,500 employees in Washington. The majority of the membership are not scientists and have no expertise in fluoride issues, further the National Federation of Federal Employees is not a scientific body that performs research. It was also a vote passed by only 20 members…

          The basis for an allegation that the EPA opposes fluoridation occurred on July 2, 1997, when 20 EPA employees who opposed fluoridation attended a meeting of Chapter 280 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). At that time, EPA had approximately 18,000 employees, and Chapter 280 of NFFE represented 1000-1600 of them. Because those 20 EPA employees constituted a majority of the union members attending the meeting, they were able to adopt a resolution opposing California’s mandatory fluoridation law. At a subsequent press conference they claimed that NFFE adopted the resolution.

            Within a few days, Chapter officers issued an official statement declaring that the press conference was held without their knowledge or consent.

          Subsequent to that, two employees implied that EPA opposed fluoridation. Neither NFFE nor its successor, the National Treasury Employees’ Union, has published an official position on fluoridation. The lack of all pertinent details, has mislead some of the public into thinking that EPA is opposed to water fluoridation.

          the CDC, who in 1999 and 2001 acknowledged that the mechanisms of fluoride benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth.

          Nice try, what they actually said was, “The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity.”
          and you seem to ignore the very next sentence, “However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization (28).”

          In the July 2000, peer-reviewed cover story of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA)…

          again you are quote mining (the paraphrasing and twisting the quotes) and ignoring the context of the quote. It seems you are referring to the underlined sentence below, however you ignore the very relevant next sentence in the Clinical Implications section (bolded)

          CONCLUSIONS: Caries progression or reversal is determined by the balance between protective and pathological factors.

            Fluoride, the key agent in battling caries, works primarily via topical mechanisms: inhibition of demineralization, enhancement of remineralization and inhibition of bacterial enzymes.

          CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces caries via these topical mechanisms. Antibacterial therapy must be used to combat a high bacterial challenge. For practical caries management and prevention or reversal of dental caries, the sum of the preventive factors must outweigh the pathological factors.

          Your references here support drinking water fluoridation. Drinking fluoridated water throughout the day provides continual protection. The Queensland Goverment website states “The continual protection of fluoridated water is one of the reasons it is much more effective at reducing tooth decay than fluoride tablets or drops.”

          The CDC and ADA clearly state that ingesting fluoride is pointless…

          No they don’t, they both clearly support it and state why.

  16. regina sebright Says:

    Ireland, Australia and New Zealand…none of which are highly industrialised, are Nos 2,3 & 4 in highest rates of cancer…commonality ? fluoride in the water.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      thats a pretty weak argument based on mere correlation, you are also ignoring that numerous scientific studies from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, including a review of over 50 published studies contradict the claim that fluoridation causes cancer.

      • Johnathan Says:

        Actually, the studies you cite all use the term mortality, meaning died from, not contracted. Most also only talk about osteosarcoma, or bone cancer. Dr. Burk’s infamous study looked at breast and lung cancers – not bone, and was based on rate of contraction, not mortality.

        I don’t know either way, but every study I see in favor of Fluoridation seems to be a bit shady in its terminology from one to the next – misleading much like government does when it comes to inflation, unemployment and other figures.

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          Burks study is clearly titled “Fluoridation and cancer, age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation”.

          Can you please support your claim with quotes and references? And NOT a copy & paste straight from the Fluoride Action Network.

    • brett Says:

      What do you mean exactly by “Causes Cancer” ??? wtf???!!! : cancer cells are a Good Thing..for a healthy body & immune system… The problem arises when Cancer Cells get out of control…It’s a proper Balance thing & there is Nothing about FL that suggests it promotes ‘Good Health’ … Especially for ADULTS..(yeah – fl prevents – 50yrs of stats show- what: 3-16% fewer cavaities during ‘growth’ yrs., but a HORRENDOUS COST)…it’s sorta irrelevant though when you consider even the POSSIBILITY of fck fl calsifying the Pineal Gland…Sweet Dreams- Skep

  17. paulbcohen Says:

    You say Dr. Burk’s study was flawed, but cite no references that prove any flaws in his study. Can you provide any specific rebuttals, or the facts themselves, such as what important variables weren’t taken into account in the study?

  18. Skeptics United » Fluorihöpöhöpöä Says:

    [...] Tutkimuksella ei kuitenkaan ollut paljon faneja tietellisessä yhteisössä ja sitä kritisoitiinkin muun muassa siitä, että dataa ei oltu suhteutettu monen tärkeän muuttujan suhteen. Se oli siis metodologisesti vähintäänkin viallinen. Sittemmin massiivinen määrä tutkimuksia ja meta-analyyseja on osoittanut, että fluorin ja syövän välillä ei ole yhteyttä. Burk ei kuitenkaan koskaan lakannut uskomasta fluorihypoteesiinsa. [...]

  19. Is fluoride toothpaste giving me cancer? Says:

    [...] against fluoride. You can read it here.  If you time to jump down the rabbit hole, we suggest you read this reference she provided. We responded with additional references from skeptical websites that basically repeat [...]

  20. Tracy W. Says:

    I have read most all of this and I finally found one argument that rings true for me and the rest is just repetitive and exhausting. It comes from Carl who posted on Dec. 23 2012:

    “Its not a question of whether its proven to cause cancer, its a question of why we need it in the first place.”

    ……….and here is where I have the most difficulty in accepting any possibility of fluoride being something I want in my water based on claims it might prevent a few cavities:

    1. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer and sold to most of the major cities in North America, which use this industrial grade source of fluoride to fluoridate drinking water, rather than the more expensive pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride salt. Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans. Increased lead levels have been found in children living in fluoridated communities. Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has been shown to be associated with radium in the drinking water. Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether.

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/limeback/

    “Wait? Explain this? How does material untested and potentially contaminated get into our water?! Yes, its called the art of marketing. You show a poor child with bad teeth. You tell people that he is hungry and his mouth hurts so he cannot concentrate at school. You feel so sorry for him. And you agree that this small dosage of fluoride will make him a happy, smiling healthy kid again, who will go on to get good grades and, probably become a dentist. You get the idea. It’s salesmanship. It appeals to your empathetic nature and makes you vote to put the fertilizer industry’s byproduct into your water so they don’t have to pay to dispose of it as hazardous waste”

    http://pierceprairiepost.com/2012/10/21/water-fluoridation-viewpoint-from-one-of-the-2-who-cannot-ingest/

    ………So that’s enough for me to say NO to fluoride in my water!

    ………and, please, Mr. Skeptical Vegan, can you truly, honestly, from your vegan gut and heart, look me straight in the eye and tell me that’s something you want in your water? I mean aren’t you just a little bit ‘skeptical’?……….

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      1. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer…

      I don’t see what so wrong with industry recovering useful by-products. Such a practice make efficient use of resources. Contaminates in fluoride additives are tested for and regulated

      Independent verification organizations, including NSF International and Underwriters Laboratories, verify that fluoride additives comply with the NSF/ANSI standards. These organizations test fluoride additives for regulated metal compounds and other substances that have an EPA MCL. For a fluoride additive product to meet certification standards, regulated metal compounds added by the water treatment process must have a concentration less than 10% of the MCL.

      A comprehensive assessment of the ANSI/NSF Standard 60 for more than 50 additives was published in 2004. This peer-reviewed assessment concluded that the process successfully achieved the stated goals of preventing problems with trace contaminants in U.S. water treatment additives. More information is available from Brown, Cornwell, MacPhee. Trace contaminants in water treatment chemicals. Journal American Water Works Association 2004;96:12:111–125.

      Consumers sometimes raise concerns about arsenic in drinking water and the fact that fluoride additives may contain some arsenic. The EPA allowable criterion for arsenic consumption in drinking water is 10 parts per billion. NSF quality testing has found that most fluoride additive samples do not have detectable levels of arsenic. For those samples that do test positive, the arsenic level that an average consumer would experience over an entire year of drinking water at a maximum dosage of 1.2 mg/L fluoride would only be about 1.2% of the EPA allowable amount.

      Other impurities in the NSF International-certified fluoride product testing were found to be even lower than the arsenic levels, with only 1%–3% of fluoride products containing detectable levels of metals. The average exposure to a typical consumer would be less than 0.1% of the EPA allowable levels.

      moving on…

      Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans.

      From the NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals:

      All the three NSF certified products, Sodium fluoride, Sodium fluorosilicate, and Fluorosilicic acid, all dissociate to sodium, fluoride, and silicate ions in water. Sodium, fluoride, and silicates all have toxicological studies, fluoride has an MCL regulatory level, and silicate has an NSF maximum usage assessment. Fluorosilicates do not need a toxicological assessment specifically for the fluorosilicate ion, because it does not exist in potable water at the fluoride concentrations and pH levels of public drinking water (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)

  21. Tracy W. Says:

    Okay, you got all the technical hoopla stuff reprinted here, (that does not convince me), but there are a few things that seem to be ignored time and time again…………

    Number one: The accumulated build up in our bodies! We receive this toxin from so many sources in our diets it’s ridiculous! Think about all the food and beverages made with fluoridated water (boiling water makes it concentrate), the fertilizers and pesticides that have fluoride in them and goes on our plants, the water that goes on the plants, the plants that take up the fluoride (grapes being extremely high because they love fluoride and just suck it up, yes naturally occurring and the chemical kind), the tooth paste that kids swallow, the fluoride we take up in our skin in showers, soaking in baths, playing in pools etc…….. It really is quite frightening when you start looking wide and deep!

    Number two: It’s waisting our money! We pay taxes to our cities, they buy “fluoride” (toxic waist reclassified), they put it in our water with the “intent” of helping to reduce cavities in children and then I believe there is an estimate of 95% or so going down the drain in washing clothes, dishes, cars etc….., flushing toilets etc. So the target group is getting a very tiny minuscule of what we’re paying for and the rest of our money goes down the drain while the controversy of it’s effectiveness rages on! (I would say follow the trail of money and you may find who is on what side of the arguments!)

    Number three: I don’t like bad jokes played on me! And I really feel the joke is on us! These chemical fertilizer companies, instead of paying for this toxic waist to be disposed of ‘properly’, they sell it to chemical companies who in turn sell it to our municipalities. Then it goes in our public water systems and ultimately ends up in our ground, rivers, lakes, sounds, oceans where it is illegal to dump them in the first place! OMG! Can you see the ultimate scheme in all this? the craziness? Can you see the fat executives just laughing their heads off all the way to the bank?

    ……… last but not least can you please respond to my last question? Are you honestly and truly really okay with this in your water? I mean, really truly okay with this big joke that’s being played on all of us, including our children and our environment?

    Okay, one more thing………. our country is extremely rare in adding fluoride to our water yet the statistics DO show the downward trend of cavities around the world regardless of whether there is fluoride in the water or not!!!

    Peace…………..

    • Been Says:

      Tracy, I’m no scientist and I don’t really think the government should put fluoride in water because I think intake of any substance should be a choice by the individual, and not a mandate by the government.
      In light of that, this particular comment of yours is fallacious for a few reasons:
      1) You are nitpicking which studies to use as references. You claimed the “technical hoopla stuff” you were given by skepticalvegan to be unconvincing, but you find that the studies that support your narrative to be convincing. How come your “technical hoopla stuff” is more convincing? You didn’t even cite where you got your information so how do we know you aren’t just making it up?
      2) You have created a strawman argument. You bring up the argument about “whether or not we should put fluoride in our water” when the point of this article is about “whether or not fluoride use is safe.” I do not believe skepticalvegan has stated his stance on whether or not we should add fluoride into our water because that IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE. skepticalvegan is discussing the evidenced-based scientifically stated effects of fluoride, not his personal opinion. You are avoiding his point and at the same time claiming he is avoiding yours.
      3) Your third point is just stirring up fear and claiming there is a conspiracy. Where is your proof of this? Can you find a study that shows that runoff from fluoride-water causes environmental hazards? Can you even point to how someone would actually make money doing so?
      4) When you bring up other countries, in fact, when you bring up other geographical locations of any sort, you must address the differences between the places you are comparing. What else goes on in other countries that might have an affect towards this “downward trend of cavities around the world”? Do you honestly believe the only difference between America (population: 315,608,000, with over 3.79 million square miles of land) and let’s say China (population: 1,353,821,000, with over 5,965,178 square miles of land)?

      I am finding it hard believe in your argument (more of an opinion, in my opinion) when you won’t even acknowledge scientific evidence as convincing unless it supports what you already believe.
      A better argument might actually be addressing the problems within the studies themselves, whether they were done in a scientific manner that accounts for bias, uncontrollables, etc, and not just claiming they are wrong because they don’t support your belief.

      • Been Says:

        Oops, I forgot to finish a sentence.
        “Do you honestly believe the only difference between America (population: 315,608,000, with over 3.79 million square miles of land) and let’s say China (population: 1,353,821,000, with over 5,965,178 square miles of land) IS FLUORIDE USE?”

  22. ezziej Says:

    Wow I’m shocked at some of these comments. The level of naiveté from some posters is truly confronting. Of course, I forget sometimes that not everyone is a scientist, let alone capable of thinking for themselves. One of the most important skills a person can learn is the ability to question what others (who clearly have an agenda) present to them as fact.

    I came across this post after doing a thorough PubMed search on water fluoridation and it’s systemic health risks after a friend told me he’d been working on a paper about it and then another asked me (I’m a physiology PhD who is active in medical research). After reporting my unbiased, educated findings to my friend I got curious about what was being posted online about the topic. And I have to say, I love this post because it sums up everything I said to my friend nicely.

    My current pet hate is the way the internet is being abused to push false medical information. If you’re upset about taxes being spent on water fluoridation, just say so. Don’t jump on a bandwagon that you know nothing about and are not qualified to support beyond having been told something by some guy who heard it from their friend who got it from a web meme.

    • karlbaba Says:

      Regarding your April 1st Post, Ezziej, as a PHD in physiology involved in medical research, what is your opinion. Of any drugs/vitamins/minerals/substances we could be adding to water, all water for drinking and otherwise, is fluoride the foremost chemical we should be adding to water and why? I have to admit to feeling it lacks wisdom to add a chemical, particularly one known to be toxic, into all water with the expectation that it will run off on the teeth of those who use the minor percentage of that water which is used for drinking.

      This is all the more true in recent years as people seem to be drinking less and less tap water anyway. Waste of money and taking risks with health.

      Wouldn’t it be better to put some vitamin in the water that is causing worse health issues because of it’s deficiency?

      Because there really isn’t enough data to assure me that there is enough data regarding fluoride to show it is safe. What is safe for some people may be unsafe for others. For instance, people with Hashimoto’s thyroid conditions may have trouble with Flouride taking the place of iodine in the iodine receptors the thyroid uses to make thyroid hormone. They are both Halogens, very similar molecularly. These variables would be hard to work with statistically since there is much undiagnosed autoimmune thyroid conditions and are a small enough population to require specific studies as they wouldn’t affect total population results much.

  23. Crystal Says:

    Why would you discredit a chemist as quackery who discovered biotin, was rewarded for photosynthesis, resonance scanner, and the head chemist of many institutes including working in Germany at institutes that used fluoride as a chemical bioweapon…usually the people who are against the scientific community become the infamous paradigm shifters of our time.

    • Been Says:

      Did you read the post??
      “This extraordinary claim originated with a paper on the subject of fluoride and cancer, titled ”Fluoridation and cancer, age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation”, which was originally put forward in 1975 and then again in 1977 by Dr. Dean Burk and fellow fluoridation opponent John Yiamouyiannis¹. However, the paper was not well received by the majority of scientists at the time and the paper’s methodology was criticized, such as for failure to adjust for important variables. Numerous subsequent scientific studies from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, including a review of over 50 published studies contradicted Burk’s conclusion and found no evidence to support such an outrageous claim…

      …However, Dr. Burk is an outlier on this issue in the scientific community. While Dr. Burk had a long scientific career and was notable as a co-discoverer of both biotin and a MRI prototype, a closer look at his career raises serious questions about his credibility. Burk’s approach to fluoridation was one of an activist more than a scientist. The self-correcting model of science advances on the basis of new evidence, yet Burk was never able to accept the mounting evidence against his favored hypothesis.”

      And the operative word in your last statement is ‘Usually’, which does not apply always. Conversely, you could also say “Usually the scientific consensus is the generally accepted paradigm.” In this particular case, because you have to take a case by case approach and not make assumptions based on historical statistics, it seems like the consensus is backed up with more evidence than the outlier opinions.
      What point are you trying to raise?

      • Been Says:

        Also,

        “Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong.” ~Lorimer Moseley

        • Crystal Says:

          I just read a paper from the California EPA, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Division, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Carcinogenic Identification Committee, 2011 Link:http://www.oehha.org/Prop65/public_meetings/CIC101211/comments/FAN_fl.pdf
          Scientific consensus on an abundance of data results in the verification that sodium and it’s salts cause cancer!!!!
          Disprove this to me please….

          • skepticalvegan Says:

            That is not from the Cali EPA, rather it was written to the Cali EPA. The lead author is a well known anti-fluoridation activist. I’ve already addressed much of what’s in there here and elsewhere, you are going to have to be more specific in your question.

          • Been Says:

            As a side note, you might want to question why the authors of that paper cite and draw conclusions themselves and their research papers as references rather than outside sources. It doesn’t necessarily mean the points are wrong, but it is something you should consider.

  24. Dennis Says:

    99% of what Descartes had to say still stands. And who the hell is this Mosely dude.

  25. Dennis Says:

    I just found out who Mosely is. Respectable bloke, must just have been having a joke!

    • Been Says:

      The point of that quote is that sometimes incredibly smart people can be wrong.
      Moseley was referring to Descartes Boy With Foot In Fire painting that shows ‘pain’ traveling up the nerves to the brain; pain as an input. Pain is now regarded as an output.

  26. cj Says:

    Please look into acute fluoride poisoning before spreading deadly disinfo. http://poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/symptoms.html

  27. Sin Says:

    The United States is one of only eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. Even promoters of fluoridation concede that the major benefits are topical; fluoride works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside of your body, so why swallow it? Research by the Centers for Disease Control has shown that fluoride absorbs into tooth enamel topically, but ingestion of the chemical can cause adverse reactions and is not safe. The CDC also admitted that enamel fluoride concentration was not inversely related to cavities. Because of a glitch in the law, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) never safety-tested fluoride for ingestion.Yet, the FDA recently OK’d cavity-preventing claims on fluoridated bottled water labels, giving Americans a false sense of security about the safety and effectiveness of drinking bottled water with fluoride added. Sodium fluoride was sold before FDA safety and effectiveness testing laws were enacted in 1938 and 1962, respectively. So fluoride was exempt from scrutiny, or “grandfathered in,” without any FDA human or animal studies. “The premise was that all pre-1938 drugs were considered safe,” according to FDA correspondence. In fact, the FDA can’t assess whether something added to the water is safe because there’s no way to know how much people will consume, according to an FDA spokesperson quoted in a Colorado newspaper. Sodium fluoride was already sold pre-1938 but not as a decay preventive. As strange as it sounds, it commonly sold as a rat poison. The FDA has no information on the medical uses of fluoride before 1938 but even still, it is deliberately added to our water and is in almost everything you eat.

    On Nov. 9, 2006 the American Dental Association released a warning that fluoridated water should not be mixed into formula or foods intended for babies aged 1 and younger. News releases from the NYSCOF in 2000 and 2004 cited studies that linked fluorosis (damage to the teeth caused ONLY by fluoride) to infant foods mixed with fluoridated water. It took the ADA until 2006 to release its alert, right after the FDA disapproved of marketing fluoridated water to babies in October and the National Research Council reported that babies are fluoride overdosed from “optimally” fluoridated water supplies. The NRC also revealed fluoridation’s adverse effects to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others.

    If it is causing that much damage to the teeth, what is it doing inside the body? Fluoride damages more than just your teeth if you swallow it. Such as:

    Increases lead absorption
    Disrupts synthesis of collagen
    Hyperactivity and/or lethargy
    Muscle disorders
    Brain damage, and lowered IQ
    Arthritis
    Dementia
    Bone fractures
    Lowers thyroid function
    Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)
    Inactivates 62 enzymes
    Inhibits formation of antibodies
    Genetic damage and cell death
    Increases tumor and cancer rate
    Disrupts immune system
    Damages sperm and increases infertility

    The NRC’s study, called “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” showed a huge array of health issues caused by fluoride, including negative and adverse effects on the brain, the endocrine system, the thyroid, the pineal gland, insulin secretion/diabetes, the immune system, interactive/synergistic effects with other minerals and nutrients, the reproductive system, Down’s syndrome, the gastrointestinal system, the liver, the kidneys and that it may cause cancer. The overall opinion of the NRC’s report was that fluoride is dangerous, especially at it’s current levels in our water supply. If you want to download the NRC’s report, you can do that here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 .

    The CDC’s response to the NRC’s report?

    “Does CDC consider the opinion of the NRC on fluoride in drinking water in its own recommendation on community water fluoridation?”

    “Yes, CDC considers comprehensive reviews by the NRC and other systematic scientific studies in its recommendation that community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive method to reduce tooth decay among populations with access to public water systems. Water fluoridation should be continued in communities currently fluoridating and extended to those without fluoridation.”

    So people can go right ahead and keep pointing out that the government and it’s agencies support fluoridation, despite all the evidence that it’s dangerous and then keep following that up with “The government will protect us.” The government is the entity responsible for adding it to the water in the first place. The EPA made the safe reference dose of fluoride for infants TEN TIMES higher than the safe reference dose for adults. There are now 24 studies linking high fluoride exposure with lowered IQ in children. One was done by Harvard.

    I guess the EPA is full of paranoid conspiracy theorists, too since they have fluoride on their list of chemicals with Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity and Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice President of the EPA’s Headquarters’ Union said, “The difference between the levels of fluoride causing toxic effects and the levels added to water to prevent tooth decay is vanishingly small and deeply troubling.” In fact, the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists oppose all fluoridation because there is no evidence that it is safe at any level and a lot of evidence that it is not. What a bunch of crackpots, huh?

    According to the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists, “Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.” Girls in the fluoridated area also experienced earlier onset of menstruation, as a result of fluoride’s interference with the pineal gland.

    Food is full of FDA approved unnecessary additives such as: Aspartame, Monosodium glutamate (MSG), artificial colorings and flavorings, BHA, BHT… MSG is a toxic substance that has been PROVEN to cause brain damage and damage to the endocrine system, among other things. BHA has been proven to cause cancer. Dentists still use mercury in fillings. Hydrogenated oil is one of the most prominent and yet toxic ingredients put into the food supply. It directly causes cardiovascular heart disease, it destroys normal cardiovascular health, it destroys the healthy functioning of the nervous system, it causes brain disorders, it causes heart attacks. It also causes birth defects and essential fatty acid deficiencies in both the mother and her fetus. And it’s put in foods on purpose. None of these things are natural by-products. They are ADDED.

    All of these things are LEGAL, not to mention all the drugs pushed by the pharmaceutical industry and you have trouble believing that our govt allows it to be in our water even though it’s dangerous? Uh huh.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      You would do well to read through the many comments on the various fluoridation posts on this site, because Ive already addressed pretty much every claim (often more than once) you make and I’m not gonna waste my time further with old claims.

      • SinDelle Morte Says:

        What a surprise. :) I read most of them. Did not see the NRC’s review challenged or even mentioned. Did not see the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists mentioned either, or the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in the two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston. I also did not see any truly scientific studies posted which proves that fluoride is safe. All I saw were things trying to assert that fluoride isn’t the ONLY cause of certain problems. That is not proof that it’s safe. There ARE no studies which prove fluoride is safe. Don’t you think, if it has been in our water since before the 50′s, that there should be one by now? There is no proof that it does anything and I find it funny that people cling to it and defend as if it is some absolutely necessary nutrient that we need so much. People in other countries do fine without it. In Germany and Finland, for example, decay rates either remained stable or continued in their downward trend after they stopped adding fluoride to their drinking water.

        The real question is why you think it is ok for the govt to diagnose and then treat us all – sight unseen – with a biochemically-reactive drug – that is NOT EVEN PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE – with absolutely no way of knowing how much a person will ingest or any way of controlling that. Fluoride is in almost every single we ingest, in case you are not up to date with the USDA’s report and with what is also in our toothpaste, mouthwash, etc. it is absolutely unnecessary for it to also be in our water. There is a wealth of information that some would say proves fluoride is harmful. If you cannot agree to that, you should at least admit it is extremely suggestive. Ignoring that suggests an ulterior motive on your part, to be honest, or at least a closed-mindedness that dismisses the fundamental principle of science, which is “Question EVERYTHING.” Since fluoride is not necessary and we ingest it in many other ways, why are they putting it in the water, with absolutely no way of controlling or monitoring how much a person will ingest?

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          Did not see the NRC’s review challenged or even mentioned. Did not see the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists mentioned either…

          Ok Im gonna stop right there and not read any more of your comment, because you obviously didn’t bother to read mine or to do the simplest of searches.

          I mention or directly address the NRC in the following comments:

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/05/fluoride-the-brain-the-china-studies/#comment-2102

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/05/fluoride-the-brain-the-china-studies/#comment-2105

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/05/fluoride-the-brain-the-china-studies/#comment-2099

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/05/fluoride-the-brain-the-china-studies/#comment-1608

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/01/20/fluoride-brain-damage/#comment-1116

          I addressed the “EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists” in the following comments:

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/11/fluoride-cancer-quackery/#comment-2490

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/11/fluoride-cancer-quackery/#comment-2489

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/27/science-by-press-release-fluoride-iq/#comment-2062

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/27/science-by-press-release-fluoride-iq/#comment-2060

          http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/27/science-by-press-release-fluoride-iq/#comment-2059

          Once again, Ive already addressed the issues you bring up numerous times. Im not gonna do your homework for you and truthfully after having been been through this enough times I know Im not gonna change your mind one bit so I would rather spend time on new posts rather than rehashing that same stuff in the comments over and over.

          • SinDelle Morte Says:

            So you have no answer to why it is required to be in our water when they have no way of monitoring how much a person ingests and considering that we get PLENTY in our food and further considering that even proponents such as yourself concede any benefits of it are topical? And you claim you are not a shill?

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              I’m not gonna repeat myself anymore, you can go read previous comments, it has all been addressed before.

              Also, accusing people of being shills only makes you look like a conspiracy theorist.

        • Been Says:

          ahaha dude you’re funny.
          skepticalvegan, you should have kept reading because it gets pretty fun.

          So, after SinDelle Morte wrongfully claims you hadn’t addressed the particular studies, he starts claiming that fluoride has NEVER been proven to be safe. I mean, we know the level at which it is toxic, but how can we know it is SAFE? Wouldn’t we need to, um, know, uhh.. like, the level at which it becomes toxic to do that? Fluoride has never been proven to be safe by scientific studies (hint: science is about explaining).
          And then some sweeping claims about other countries.
          And then the fun part when he just completely switches goal posts and comes up with a compromise about how it is hard to control and monitor, but he doesn’t forget to sneak in the caveat that this is based on the assumption that “There is a wealth of information that some would say proves fluoride is harmful.”
          ‘Well, if you don’t believe my first assertion, couldn’t you at least agree that there is another issue and that my first assertion is right?’…
          Good show.

          • cj Says:

            The link of chronic fluoride consumption symptoms I posted proves its bad over many many years of ingesting it, has many disastrous effects that are similar to aspartame. Every post that proves it’s not safe you reject from dishonest science.money talks,I don’t blame people for calling you a fraud
            You’re vegan and promote fluoride.that’s hilarious

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              You did not post a link to chronic fluoride consumption symptoms, you said “Please look into acute fluoride poisoning”. Do you not understand the difference between acute and chronic? The acute toxic dose of fluoride (5-10 grams) is far far above any level used in community water fluoridation, its not really relevant.

          • SinDelle Morte Says:

            Dude refuses to answer why it needs to be in our water when we get it from SO many other places. I gave up on bothering with it because I have met this type before. He looks for confirmation bias. It’s a waste of time to even worry about it. if this person wants to ingest fluoride or other biochemically reactive agents or feed it to his children, etc. that is not my business. I basically said what I had to say & that was that. It wasn’t really information for the writer of this blog but for those reading it. The writer is a lost cause. He or she envisions themselves as the righter of wrongs, defender and proponent of what they consider TRUE science. People like that are worse than religious zealots. At the bottom of it ALL is the belief that the govt would not do anything which would hurt anyone. Much like belief in God, that is impossible to get past or reason with. I agree that a supposed vegan who bills him or herself as “skeptical” yet promotes fluoridation is pretty unbelievable.

            By the way? Most can figure out that “SinDelle” is a female name.

            • cj Says:

              Ok, then research chronic ingestion of fluoride, lol. There’s scientific studies that “prove” fish don’t feel pain, there’s studies that “prove” beef consumption is good for your heart. There’s studies that “prove” marijuana is the equivalent of the boogie man.

    • Been Says:

      Ok, I will go over this again.

      “Dude refuses to answer why it needs to be in our water”

      As far as I can tell*, skepticalvegan has never stated his opinion on whether there should or should not be fluoride added to our water supplies. It is a whole other argument and issue.
      The issue he is blogging about is whether fluoride is or is not safe, and he seems to agree that with proper regulation it is safe and can be beneficial.
      These are separate issues, please stop trying to change subjects.

      “He looks for confirmation bias.”

      Now, come on. First off, confirmation bias is nigh impossible to avoid, if not completely impossible. And having been influenced by confirmation bias alone doesn’t really weigh on whether the argument is right or wrong.
      Also, I read this study recently, titled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
      which claims ‘Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias’
      So if you are going to make this claim, show how us how it has led to the wrong conclusions by addressing the issues more so than skepticalvegan’s methodology.

      “He or she envisions themselves as the righter of wrongs, defender and proponent of what they consider TRUE science.”

      What would you call yourself?

      “At the bottom of it ALL is the belief that the govt would not do anything which would hurt anyone.”

      I suppose I’ll just say that it would not surprise me if a government of any sort did something that knew was going to be harmful to its own populace, but it would surprise me if there was malicious intent in fluoridation. Could you entertain me and explain what there is to gain?

      “I agree that a supposed vegan who bills him or herself as “skeptical” yet promotes fluoridation is pretty unbelievable.”

      Why is it unbelievable? Does making sweeping generalizations like this make your argument any more correct?

      You still haven’t brought anything new to the table in the argument over if fluoride is safe or not, and there seems to be overwhelming evidence pointing towards it being safe with the correct dosage and there are methods that make the process safe and manageable. This blog does a good job presenting that evidence. Slandering about and stating your opinion and claiming others are wrong based on the assumption that you are right doesn’t help. Avoiding addressing the actual issues and central ideas around the rebuttals of your ‘arguments’ doesn’t make your case any better, refusing to show evidence to your claims is just weird.

      and in response to CJ:
      “Ok, then research chronic ingestion of fluoride, lol. There’s scientific studies that “prove” fish don’t feel pain, there’s studies that “prove” beef consumption is good for your heart. There’s studies that “prove” marijuana is the equivalent of the boogie man.”

      Studies don’t “prove” anything and writing “prove” sarcastically with quotation marks doesn’t make that point wrong. Earlier I linked to a study saying most published studies might just be evidence of confirmation bias. So, when you research anything, you need to read all of the relevant studies related to it to get a full picture; a single study does not have much bearing, especially if there is a lot of literature on the subject. However, a study that reflects and is supported by most of the relevant literature carries more weight than one that is less so.
      And researching chronic ingestion of fluoride at safe levels has led me to the conclusion that “fluoride ingested at safe levels is safe.”

      *I hope skepticalvegan doesn’t mind me speaking on his behalf. But, I’d still like to emphasize that this is how I am interpreting this argument, and can’t speak say for certain I am correctly analyzing anyone’s intentions or opinions. It’s not going to stop me from trying though :)

      • cj Says:

        Well, when you begin ingesting fluoride as a baby, and continue onto say, 45,50 yrs old, that is not good. A lot of seemingly normal side effects that are easily misdiagnosed are easily ignored.like depression, anxiety disorders, fibryomyalgia, Alzheimers, diabetes, cardiovascular problems, cancer, you name it. Come on…this is toxic, it’s as deadly as aspartame, when ingesting it for half your life…the effects no don’t doubt take their toll on the body in one significant, or insignificant way or another

        • cj Says:

          And the gains, in allowing this? A sick, apathetic submissive society is quite easy to control and manipulate
          You know how dirty the factory farm industry is and the atrocities committed with the governments approval. Five hundred sentient brothers and sisters ritually murdered every hour, ten billion a year, and no matter how rampant cancer, heart disease and diabetes is in America, ‘they’ continue to advertise meats smothered in cheeses deep fried and delicious. They don’t care about our health. You are vegan and trust the governments ultimate word, that sodium fluoride, along with routine meat and dairy consumption….is good for you?

          • cj Says:

            Why not just advocate for clean water for everyone? you are pro fluoride because you feel bad for the poor kids…lol with how we feed the majority of factory farmed livestock our food supply the same time children are starving, you would rather fight for the children through fluoridation…a damned neuro toxin.

            • cj Says:

              Also Been…why are you sensitive towards mild sarcasm? Don’t be ignorant of your own sarcasm =p

        • Been Says:

          Show me that fluoride builds up over time, and show me that this wasn’t taken in account when determining safe levels of fluoride. You can’t just make assertions without citations and then make an irrelevant list and expect me to just believe you, especially when someone else is telling me otherwise.

          “You are vegan and trust the governments ultimate word, that sodium fluoride, along with routine meat and dairy consumption….is good for you?”

          I’m not a vegan, and I don’t trust the “governments ultimate word” but I do trust my own reading comprehension and have seen enough evidences backing fluoridation, and I see no gain in knowingly poisoning people.

          Earlier I mentioned I personally don’t think the government should be adding fluoride because I think people should have as much control over what they ingest as possible. I still see the benefits of fluoridation and I think they are quite clear. I would be happy if my water had fluoride, but I still don’t think it should be added. And I would be very happy if it helped other people.

          “Also Been…why are you sensitive towards mild sarcasm? Don’t be ignorant of your own sarcasm =p”

          I was giving you enough respect to not talk to you in a totally demeaning manner, would you like me to mock you?

          It would be nice if you would stop bringing up other stuff that is unrelated to fluoridation so any discussion would actually have a direction instead of stating weird opinions and accusations.

          • cj Says:

            I know YOU’RE not vegan, silly, that was to skeptic. Sure I’ll show you some urls. I’m on a phone so it will take a while. Also, you and septic mock and demean just about all those who disagree. Why u so sensitive when dealt your own medicine 8(

          • cj Says:

            Also I’m on topic, what’s wrong with your comprehension? >_>

            • cj Says:

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3318083/

              http ://www.fluoridation.com/abstract.htm#DENTAL%20FLUOROSIS

              http://www.mymercuryfreedentist.com/flouridePoisoning.shtml

            • cj Says:

              http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823

              Why not consider that its not healthy, does more harm than good, and is yet another lie perpetuated by the government. Its really no that fluoride is poisonous? Oh because you don’t believe they would make us sick on purpose?

            • cj Says:

              Eh my phone garbled that last message. But, considering other toxins allowed in our food, poisons let in the water, too, is not surprising. it keeps the nation sick, that keeps the “machine” running. If we were all healthy and free, that’s a huge loss of profit.

            • Been Says:

              “Also I’m on topic”

              Nope.

            • cj Says:

              nope? We’re….on the subject of fluoride and its safety….right? Heh.heh. its high time to deflate your ego there and consider its yet another poison slipped in the consumer supply, just like aspartame.

            • cj Says:

              It is all out fun. But you remind me of this :p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

            • Been Says:

              We were talking about the safety of fluoride.
              Rather than debating facts and central ideas behind conclusions, you have brought up government conspiracy and people’s egos.
              You assert that there is a connection without showing it.
              You ask me to just believe you without giving me anything credible.
              You simply are just asking me to be on your side of this subject, but you have yet to actually give a reason as to why. I can’t just take what you say for granted.

              If you want to talk fluoride, then talk fluoride. Stop bringing up government conspiracies and stop bringing up other people’s egos. At this point, it looks like you don’t have any ammunition for the fluoride debate that is why you are trying to argue about my ego and argue about a government conspiracy, and then you try to attach the fluoride debate to those debates despite them being completely different debates. You have failed to show a connection.

              Mock me all you want, but you aren’t convincing me, and I am giving you every opportunity to show me how you are right. I am even telling you what you could show me that would convince me, and you have not come up with any strong evidence. When I ask for studies, you bring up government conspiracy, when I say I didn’t ask for conspiracy talk, you tell me I have a large ego. What’s your point?

            • Been Says:

              I just realized, in my groggy morning state, I wrote “fluoride” when I meant “fluoridation”

            • cj Says:

              I posted urls that suggest fluoride can be harmful . I only spoke about “conspiracies” when you asked to be enlightened as to why it would do the government any good to allow yet another neuro toxin in the food supply. It’s not far fetched that they would take advantage of this. Along with depression as a side effect of chronic ingestion, it also causes apathy. I see the government like this. They lie, and when they keep lying, I don’t take their word on anything anymore. Big brother is more like a lying, cheating spouse you can’t divorce from. I’ve grown accustomed to questioning their official statements. There always seems to be another side to the story.

  28. Mike Sharpe Says:

    Cancer or not ? I cant believe all the time wasted by fluoride proponents trying to convince us this is good ! Wake up stop picking apart flaws in studies – I could rant all day about flaws in studies showing any positives of fluoride. Adding fluoride to water is neither,safe nor effective like the CDC parrots keep repeating – its their mantra. the CDC used to tell us leaded gas & asbestos was safe ! Then the CDC after decades of telling us fluoride ingestion helped strengthen a baby’s teeth while erupting through the gums,now tell us that fluorides only benefit is topical not systemic but yet they still endorse water fluoridation that blows their credibility as far as Im concerned.Pick apart studies all day but bottom line 95% of the world said f____ fluoride. So instead of focusing on the faults of Dean Burk lets look at Dr.James Beck’s MD PhD Poffessor of Medical Biophysics Univ. of Calgary. Dr. Hardy Limeback DDS/Biologist’s studies. Or Dr David Kennedy DDS. or Dr Paul Connett PhD Professor St. Lawrence University . Read the critique the book “Case against fluoride” or “The Fluoride

    • Mike Sharpe Says:

      For some reason my last sentence was incomplete I was referring to the book The Fluoride Deception. & A typo I meant to say Read & Critique the book “The Case Against Fluoride” Thank You M.J.S.

  29. Bill Says:

    It is very clear throughout this exchange that the peope accusing Skeptical Vegan of being driven by ego are themselves massive egoists who are convinced they have privileged access to the truth, so much so that no amount of evidence will ever erode their self-satisfied convictions. Thank you Skeptical Vegan for your lucidity and patience.

  30. James White Says:

    Fact: People just don’t want anything in their drinking water. So let them drink untreated water.

    • paulbcohen Says:

      No one disagrees with sanitizing the water, but not everyone agrees to being medicated with fluoride. You have no right to force that on me, nor I on you. What’s so hard to understand about that? Many governing bodies have gotten the message, ceasing the offensive practice.

      • skepticalvegan Says:

        Actually there are people who oppose current sanitation methods…and they are often the same people who oppose fluoridation.

        Fluoridation is a reasonable and beneficial public health intervention. What’s so hard to understand about that?

        • paulbcohen Says:

          Skepticalvegan has misconstrued what I wrote, obviously in stalwart defense of a failing proposition and captive to pride. I didn’t say there aren’t people who oppose the current sanitation methods. What I said was very different: “No one disagrees with sanitizing the water.”

          Yes, there is needed debate on what is the best method of accomplishing sanitation, but there is no argument against sanitation being necessary.

          No so with forced medication via hydrofluorosilisic acid being dumped into the water supply. Not only in this case is there an immoral presumption of consent by all to be medicated, but there is scant proof of any health benefit whatsoever to the medication, while ample proof exists of harm and damage. That’s why so many educated scientists and doctors have stood against fluoridation despite persecution by the retrograde forces of paid-for corporate scientists and government lackeys.

          Paul Cohen

          • Been Says:

            Hey Paul, maybe you should re-read what you said and how skepticalvegan replied because I am pretty sure you are the one who misconstrued what was being said – in fact, in your response you agree with skepticalvegan at one point while claiming it is an opposing viewpoint. And you are splitting hairs in the first place – trying to make yourself sound right by disputing semantics.

            I don’t think there is scant proof of benefits from fluoridation, skepticalvegan has listed many resources suggesting benefits. The studies opposed to fluoridation are in the minority in this case.

            While you can make the case that this is a social issue, bringing in bad science to defend your social belief is pretty unconvincing.

  31. paulbcohen Says:

    I chose my words very carefully, Been, and you’ve missed the plain meaning that is there. Forget the science for a moment, and concentrate on what I said about Skepticalvegan’s argument concerning sanitation, which I showed has no merit whatsoever when applied to fluoridation. If you still don’t understand, ask me specific questions and I will explain further.

    .

    • Been Says:

      Paul, you started splitting hairs when you failed to observe the common sentiment being discussed (that there are people arguing against fluoridation -along with other sanitation methods- by saying it is poisonuous and dangerous), and focused on the obvious argument everyone will agree on “people want drinkable water”. Oh okay, that wasn’t explicitly written but it is the notion that you were obviously implying when you said, “No one disagrees with sanitizing the water, but not everyone agrees to being medicated with fluoride.”
      I feel like skepticalvegan addressed a relevant point when they said “Actually there are people who oppose current sanitation methods…and they are often the same people who oppose fluoridation.” I feel as though people who are opposing the current sanitation methods because of “danger” or whatever are close enough in spirit to people who don’t want sanitation as is relevant to the point of this blog. You aren’t going to win me over with semantics.

      Now, it seems to me that skepticalvegan replied to your question, “What’s so hard to understand about [people not wanting fluoride forced upon them]?” with “Fluoridation is a reasonable and beneficial public health intervention. What’s so hard to understand about that?” I’d feel safe to assume that this blog speaks as a solid argument in support of the notion that the benefits behind fluoride are pretty darn founded. – I feel this was the more relevant argument, and it ain’t the one you are focusing on. If you want to address it, bring out the big facts, not just unsupported claims, especially ones that have already been discussed.

      So now that you’ve framed an argument (one that isn’t even particularly relevant to the point of this whole blog) so that both sides would obviously agree on it, you just go on to state there is no proof of the benefits of fluoride, a point that isn’t relevant to whether people want sanitized water or not. There looks like a lot of evidence for the benefits of fluoridation to me. And this has all been addressed in prior comments. Then appeal you to authority and numbers yada yada.

      So yeah, I’ll agree, you picked your words very carefully, but they aren’t convincing me of anything. And I agree that public resources shouldn’t go to a program like this (unless like, everyone wanted it I guess), so like, lol.

  32. Grey Says:

    I’m sure urine in small enough doses is safe and Googlably healthy. Also, let’s not forget that cardboard is digestible. :-)

    • Been Says:

      What is your point?

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      While urine present in comparable levels to that of fluoride in fluoridated water would almost certainly be safe to drink, I’m not sure it would convey any benefits. I’m fairly sure that all that “drink your own urine for health” stuff has little quality scientific support. Anyways there is a good chance that folks drinking from the tap (or natural sources) are already drinking a bit of urine in water sourced from an uncovered reservoir or if the city does toilet-to-tap water treatment.

      And sure cardboard (cellulose really, as that what it is made of) could also be consumed (though not really digested). But to what end? I mean its used in some food products actually (& is naturally present in other things we eat like corn).

      I see where you were trying to go with this but I think you failed at make any kind of good analogy. Anyways arguing from analogy while sometimes helpful for illustration is fairly weak if it is all you have.

  33. Connor Says:

    Fluoride is for fools who want cancer.
    Ireland is the only country in the European Union with mandated fluoride, it also has the highest rate of neurological disease, cardiovascular disease, thyroid and cancer.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      First you are going to have to provide a citation for the claim that Ireland has A: the highest rate of neurological disease, B: the highest rate of cardiovascular disease, C: the highest rate of thyroid disease, & D: the highest rate of cancer.

      Second you will have to state what evidence you have that these things are caused by fluoridation in Ireland versus other causes.

      Cancer in Ireland has been studied in relation to fluoridation and found no link (in addition to many studies from around the world). The National Cancer Registry Ireland has also stated that they do “not consider that water fluoridation is a plausible explanation” for cancer rates in Ireland.

      Fluoridation and cardiovascular disease have also been studied in various nations and found no reason for concern.

  34. Glenn Says:

    It doesn’t take much intelligence to realize that adding poison to drinking water is not a good thing. We are talking about an industrial waste product that Hitler used to sedate and control his prisoners. Wake the hell up and THINK. Don’t feed me that crap that it fights tooth decay. It’s used to dumb us down and sedate us. The government and corporations couldn’t care less about our teeth to begin with. If that were true, they would not be poisoning use with GMO, good additives, Aspartame and other little goodies. I don’t buy vegan’s arguments for a second. And, by the way, I was a scientist.

  35. 1kcc Says:

    Well, I neither drink urine nor ‘consume’ cardboard in any noticeable amount on purpose. But thanks for looking into for me.

  36. Skyhigh Knoxathon Says:

    When ONLY dealing in the concrete world this is the answer you will come up with. Much like religion, spirituality.. Life is more than just science. It is faith, it is tangible human experience, it is unique and of its own design. Science is a dogma, and it is attached to very biased and close-minded ideas. Lately it has been coming around to a more secular, and sometimes religious view, but that is mainly not the case. Here is one group doing good for the world and not spending time/money/effort trying to break down other peoples work and ideas: (http://resonance.is/) The pineal gland is the seat of the soul, and I don’t mind if a scientist doesn’t scientifically agree with that statement. I would suggest all the people here calling this person a shill.. Do not give your energy away. Do not let these words change who you are or what you experience. We are 4th dimensional beings trying to understand things in a 3rd dimensional world. It is confusing, chaotic, but we are in the culmination stage of years and years of spiritual development and evolution. Many facets of life are real, with or without peer-reviewed study of it. To see that someone else can not go beyond science or concrete explanation of something does not mean we can’t. The left side of our brain works for concrete, fact, and logic, while the right side works for art, expression, creativity. What science does a lot of time is works the left, but not the right, when in fact we should be working both of them simultaneously (with the help of the pineal gland in the center of it all) because left and right, yin and yang, masculine and feminine, all of these polarities, when they are combined, create life.

    • been Says:

      lol. you realize the whole purpose of the scientific method is to avoid as much bias as possible??? you seem confused.

      • Skyhigh Knoxathon Says:

        Do not be so easily convinced to believe the dogma and standards of others. You seem smart enough to do your own fact checking and to google things the exact opposite of your beliefs.. Hey, it may even give you a broader understanding of the things you are trying to understand only through “verifiable” and “legitimate” sources (lol) http://lgbtlatestscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/scientific-heterosexism1.pdf this is just one small example of your non-biased scientific method used for oppression and a tool of political and state institutions. :)

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          Typical. You can’t actually address anything about fluoride so you just attack science.
          Social justice is important but don’t act like science is the problem.

        • been Says:

          you can’t expect me to take the seriously, can you? the first think that came to mind was that the author of that paper looked at a single study and presented that as the overall and only view of things in ‘science’. if you think science is some weird singular cult, come on.

  37. Balance Says:

    The author is obviously egotistical and “clings” to his beliefs as bad or worse than those he accuses of the same. I’ve read all the comments and this guys arguments have been refuted time and again. HE JUST REPEATS the same thing over and over again, much like a televangelist, someone’s going to believe him. Garbage of a post and I will be spreading the word of the joke this site is. What a waste of 5 minutes.

    Skepticalvegan conclusion

    “Ingesting toxic material is okay!”

  38. Bob Says:

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=206

  39. Anananda Says:

    So, I’ve read all the comments. And I cannot find a single reference to a study, and preferably more studies, which proves fluoridating the water supply is safe. Strangely, I have seen this assumption being made in the comments several times. I have tried to find proof of its safety myself, but failed. Could someone who is pro fluoride in the water supply and believes it’s safe please enlighten me en point me towards these studies? Not just panels of 7 voting on it. I’m very sorry if it has been mentioned in the comments and I’ve missed it, it’s not by lack of trying, so please help me out? Thanks heaps.

  40. Tim Says:

    Decades of research…..Conclusion. “There are two methodologically acceptable studies of the carcinogenicity of fluoride in experimental animals. The Procter and Gamble study did not find any significant evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice of either sex.”

    Referencing data from a study by Proctor and Gamble is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Any reliable data would not be reliable at all. 84 Billion in revenue… you think that they would do a proper study on the effects of fluoride? Lets see, Trust a multi-billion dollar corporation that would not benefit from negative findings or trust Chief EPA Senior Science Adviser that was willing to stick his neck out and turn the tables with the truth.

    • been Says:

      “Our review cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, because the actual exposures of the individual children are not known. ”
      and
      “the NRC report examined the potential adverse effects of fluoride at 2–4 mg/L in drinking water and not the benefits or potential risks that may occur when fluoride is added to public water supplies at lower concentrations (0.7–1.2 mg/L) ”
      from one of the reports you cited – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

  41. Opa Says:

    Here’s the evidence, The Lancet, the oldest peer reviewed journal in England, has declared flouride is a neurotoxin and the reasons why are contained in this article:

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422%2813%2970278-3/fulltext#article_upsell

    Namaste _/\_

  42. Alan Says:

    I’m not so techincally knowledgable on this subject, howver I do know about the harms of fluoride on the body. I tend to use other natural methods so I can avoid using fluoride!

    • Been Says:

      Dude, get this: if you drink too much water you could die. You should try more natural methods to hydrate yourself.

  43. Tubal Cain Says:

    Yeah this thread is bogus , Hey eat crap it’s good for you . It’s safe the studies by the people that profit off you being sick said so . WTF People aren’t believing this anymore fluoride is not safe and is far from it . Spread the word I know I am right now !!!

  44. Lou Says:

    Great post Skeptical Vegan! Thanks so much for the dose of sanity and all the helpful references… You have shown incredible patience with these quacky commenters – I’m in awe…
    Have a stiff drink and keep up the good work!

  45. karlbaba Says:

    Fewer people are drinking Tap Water all the time. How bad it is to drink a known toxic substance (FDA warnings on all toothpaste tubes) is one issue. The wisdom in putting it in the water we wash our cars with, water our lawns with and so on, with the hopes that some will touch our teeth on it’s way into our system is another issue.
    And a fair amount of evidence shows it does’ help as much as was believed. Cavities have been declining worldwide, just as much in places that don’t add fluoride.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6075/pdf/322125a0.pdf

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 266 other followers

%d bloggers like this: