Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!

I know it’s often said the “third time’s the charm”, but really it’s just getting old at this point.  Fluoridation opponents are once again trotting out the tired canard of community water fluoridation negatively impacting brain function and intelligence. In a post titled Can Fluoride Lower Human Intelligence?, Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo, writes,

Is fluoride a potential cause of lowering of IQ in our children? Certainly those who advocate for consuming it therapeutically, without acknowledging its well-known adverse health effects, may themselves be suffering from a fluoride-induced deficiency of intelligence.
After all, is it intelligent to ignore the evidence supporting a hard and fast connection between increased fluoride exposure and lower IQ?

Accusations of low intelligence of fluoridation proponents are nothing new, but I have not seen actual evidence of this childish claim. I have, however, noted an alarming lack of reading comprehension among a number of vocal fluoridation opponents. As evidence of this “hard and fast connection” between fluoride and intelligence Ji cites a 2008 paper titled Fluoride and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis. This paper was a meta-analysis of 16 papers published over the last 20 years in regards to fluoride exposure in China and impacts on brain development and intelligence. The paper reports,

Sixteen case-control studies that assessed the development of low IQ in children who had been exposed to fluoride earlier in their life were included in this review. A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ. The meta-analyses of the case-control studies estimated that the odds ratio of IQ in endemic fluoride areas compared with nonfluoride areas or slight fluoride areas. The summarized weighted mean difference is -4.97 (95%confidence interval [CI] = -5.58 to -4.36; p<0.01) using a fixed-effect model and -5.03 (95%CI = -6.51 to 3.55; p<0.01) using a random-effect model, which means that children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area.

The key point Ji is ignoring here is that the authors of the study were investigating the effects of living in high endemic fluoride areas with typical fluoride levels occurring at many times the approved amounts used in community fluoridation programs. The issue of endemic fluorosis is a problem in a number of nations, especially in China, where naturally occurring fluoride in the groundwater and pollution from coal create a dangerous situation.
Fluorosis-affected provinces
As said before, the use of studies done on the health dangers of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in groundwater, exposure to industrial pollution, and occupational fluoride exposure as “evidence” against the controlled use of dental fluoride and water fluoridation programs is a common tactic among community fluoridation opponents. I feel I must stress why this issue is so important to me. Fluoride is a social justice issue. Endemic fluorosis disproportionately affects the poor in developing nations, while fear-based efforts to stop community fluoridation programs disproportionately affect the poor in developed nations. While anti-fluoridation activists and organizations such as the Fluoride Action Network like to position themselves as “safe-water” advocates, their focus is entirely on stopping community water fluoridation in developed nations. It is nothing short of hypocritical and irresponsible when organizations such as this hold out study after study on the harms of endemic fluorosis in developing nations while doing  nothing to help the people in such situations but instead misdirect the concern to safe community water fluoridation programs in developed nations. Fluorosis is a real problem that affects real people, but these people are not the focus of the fluoride fearmongers. If fluoridation opponents really want to do some good they can support organizations such as Frank Water which help to provide “safe drinking water for the world’s poorest communities” by setting up sustainable filtration programs in areas with bacteriological and fluoride contamination. Their work in India, a fluorosis hotspot, has resulted in safe drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people who now have a brighter future. It is projects like this that are doing the real good, spreading fear and misinformation, however, helps no one. If you enjoyed this post please consider donating what you can to Frank Water or a similar charity of your choice, let’s put the focus where it really matters.

Further Reading:
Fluoride & Heart Disease?
Fluoride & Brain Damage
Fluoride & the Brain: Déjà Vu

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

76 Responses to “Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!”

  1. Debby Says:

    I find the suggestion that those of us in developed countries who want safe drinking water are so simple minded that we cannot also be concerned about the water safety of the poor in developing countries to be more about the authors own personal bias than truth.

    Vegans are often accused of being more concerned about animals than peoples welfare. I’m sure that the author has had this tossed in his direction as an effort to invalidate his own concern about the abuses that animals suffer at the hands of humans. To see him in turn use the same tactic by suggesting that we who oppose having fluoride added to our own water are also incapable of caring for any other group other than ourselves is an interesting tactic.

    Personally, as a vegan who cares about people and animals, and as someone who doesn’t want fluoride added to my water (and juice and other food products) I am hugely offended, because I do care about the welfare of this global community of ours whether it concern the question of bombing the poor in other countries(Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Iran), the imprisonment of the innocent, the starving masses on other continents, women who are abused by the very men who are supposed to protect them, or the poor who have only the foulest of water available to survive on.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      I find the suggestion that those of us in developed countries who want safe drinking water are so simple minded that we cannot also be concerned about the water safety of the poor in developing countries to be more about the authors own personal bias than truth.

      I didn’t say you can’t be concerned, just that every single anti-fluoridation websites & blog I scoured that cited studies done in endemic fluorosis areas choose to spin the story as if this was an issue for community water fluoridation while offering ways to stop such programs, not a single one talked about how to help people in India or China and deal with the real threat. If you have some examples of anti-fluoridation organizations actually doing something about endemic fluorosis in developing nations then please post it. While I have no doubt that individual anti-fluoridation activists have legitimate social concerns beyond their position on fluoride, it is far from clear that the anti-fluoridation community in general put very much (if any) focus on helping sufferers of epidemic fluorosis in developing nations (though they are happy to misuse studies about them).
      You are also missing the point that community fluoridation programs are safe, its not just an issue of disproportionate concern, its an issue of entirely misplaced concern. Its an issue of exploiting the misery of real people to whip up imaginary fears while not helping the real people in anyway.

      Vegans are often accused of being more concerned about animals than peoples welfare.

      While true of a number of single issue organizations, vegans have shown themselves to be quite gun-ho about human rights issues. Everyone from the “Francione Abolitionists“, to the more militant, to Peter Singer & his philosophical supporters, …and on and on…have made it clear that human rights are a crucial aspect of their philosophy. A quick perusal of vegan blogs (as well as meeting activists) makes it clear as well that many are deeply involved in a variety of human rights issues.
      Once again, I simply see no evidence of organizations such as the Fluoride Action Network actually helping the sufferers of epidemic fluorosis in developing nations (though they are happy to misuse studies about them).

      To see him in turn use the same tactic by suggesting that we who oppose having fluoride added to our own water are also incapable of caring for any other group other than ourselves is an interesting tactic.

      I didn’t say incapable, I just have encountered no evidence of organizations such as the Fluoride Action Network actually helping the sufferers of epidemic fluorosis in developing nations (though they are happy to misuse studies about them). It is an irresponsible misdirection of the public concern.

      • presentandbeing Says:

        If I was doing a study or working in the capacity of helping the women or children of my community into safe houses and away from sexually abusive situations, I might be inclined to draw on stats from anywhere in the effort to encourage change. Phrases like “if you don’t do this or that, then the same situation as is occurring in (country X)” might pepper my conversation. Saying that doesn’t obligate anyone to take on that additional fight and stretch thin already limited funds.

        Battles are often fought locally and the repercussions or effects later radiate out into the larger community or even global community. Once upon a time, we struggled with pollutions of various kinds, sorted those out and then were in a position to help out those who were facing that same situation.

        Your article suggests a general lack of concern or caring on the parts of the people who lead in the effort towards safe water here and I think that is a bit unfair. And like I said, whether you meant it or not, it did sound an awful lot like the accusations that vegans hear on a fairly regular basis, of
        being so single minded that we can’t see beyond our own
        issue. I think your real problem is that you don’t agree with their opinion and so are pointing out what you see as an absolution of duty, when in fact they are really just fighting a local battle with the funds that they have. Anyhow, that’s my opinion for what it’s worth.

        Just curious as to what you would like to see them doing specifically, assuming that the difference in opinion is not an issue? I’ve always found it interesting that those who are the most vocal in opposing someone, often have no alternatives to suggest.

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          Again you misunderstand, it is not a disproportionate response from the anti-fluoridation community, it is an entirely misplaced response. Community water fluoridation programs are safe, the use of data from high levels of endemic fluoride is misleading and meaningless. If they want to demonstrate why they are concerned about community water fluoridation rather than endemic fluorisis then they should cite studies on community fluoridation, not on endemic fluorosis. Trying to pretend like endemic fluoride and community fluoridation are the same thing and that the studies are mutually applicable is simply false and misleading.

          To use your analogy, this would be like using data on child abuse from the worst of homes only to take children away from homes where there is no abuse happening (while ignoring the actual abuse of children in the homes in the supporting studies).

          To be clear the FNA touts itself as an international organization, so serving the real needs of people in developing nations is not outside their theoretical scoop. But instead they sit there pointing out all the harm endemic fluorosis is doing in developing nations while only fighting against safe fluoridation programs. Its not that they just aren’t doing enough, its that what they are doing in the first place is wrong and a misplaced concern. Community fluoridation is not a concern, endemic fluorosis is. If they care about harms from fluoride, there are very real victims they can help, but they aren’t the ones in developed nations drinking tap water, its the ones that the FAN ignores except to cite a study about them for political/ideological gain.

          As for what i would like them to do specifically…Instead of funding anti-fluoridation campaigns here they should be using those funds to provide filtration materials and education for areas in the world such as India and China that have endemic fluorosis problems. Frank Water is one such charity that helps with endemic fluorosis in India, and for each blog post on fluoride I write I will be making a small donation to them and encouraging my readers to do so as well (since I don’t take donations for my blogging). My alternative is to focus on the REAL problem, endemic fluorosis, not community fluoridation.

          • presentandbeing Says:

            Have you considered the issue of the effect of fluoride on the thyroid? This discussion so often seems to center on fluorosis of the teeth but the fluoride that is ingested has the same molecular structure that iodine does and the result is that the thyroid receptors are unable to absorb the minute amount of iodine that is present in the diet of most people. The result is hypothyroidism and I have seen suggestions that as many as 8 out of 10 women have this disease and it is the basis for a host of other problems, weight gain, hair loss, depression, increased cholesterol and heart disease to name a few. Pre-1970, fluoride was used by doctors to suppress the thyroid in cases of hyperthyroidism and today apparently, Synthroid is one of the top five prescribed medications in North America, primarily to treat hypothyroidism(brought on perchance by fluoride?).

            Not only that, while fluoride does increase bone mineral density, it replaces the natural bone material with a substance that while there, is substantially more brittle than what is natural, predisposing the patient to the increased risk of fracture and that is why fluoride isn’t used to treat osteoporosis.

            I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNXN1LZ1ToA) by Dr. David Kennedy who was the head of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and in it he is speaking out against the use of fluoride.

            That something has been used for a long time, means nothing. There are so many ‘medicines’ which were once approved by the FDA but which have since been withdrawn because as time has passed it has become apparent that they are not only not helpful but actually dangerous to health. Why should this substance be any different? It’s my understanding too that fluoridation wasn’t actually studied all that much before they started throwing it in the water and considering the hysteria by the medical establishment these days over supplements and how they aren’t tested, yada, yada, yada, the fact that fluoride didn’t get that treatment should be a reasonable reason to re-evaluate adding it to our water.

            What should also be considered is that the US Food and Drug Administration classifies fluoride as a drug (used to treat or mitigate disease) and what you therefore have occurring is the government treating every man, woman and child (without express permission) with a drug. The dose is not controlled, we all drink differing amounts of water and as well it comes to us in every beverage and even in produce as well as any other food items that use water in their ‘manufacture’.

            I work very hard at preparing clean, healthy food. I buy organic whenever it’s available to avoid the GMO’s that that same government would like me to think are safe to eat, and I prepare most of my meals from scratch. No boxed meals in my household in a bid to keep mystery ingredients out of my body. And then there is the water! Considering all the issues against fluoride, I am surprised that there is even a discussion at this point.

  2. Timberati Says:

    .Debby,

    It appears you have missed the major point:
    “Poison is in everything, and nothing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.” Attributed to Phillip von Hohenheim (aka Paracelsus), 1493–1541.

    • presentandbeing Says:

      It appears that I didn’t miss the point but that you misunderstood what I was saying.

  3. Göran Says:

    Thanks for a great post! Ok so the science shows that having lots of flouride in drinking water lowers IQ compared to a little flouride in drinking water. What the meta analysis doesn’t say anything about is if the same correlation can be seen when comparing zero flouride in drinking water with a little flouride in drinking water. You know of any studies lookin in to this?

  4. Old Dog Says:

    The reasons that any organization is not working on other countries and their needs for better health in regards to fluoridation, is because all organizations, including the EPA, is having a hard time trying to get fluoride out of our drinking water here due to lobbyist. If we could get it out here, then we could be humanitarian overseas. As is, 98% of Europe is getting rid of it and large communities are dropping it one by one. There are programs developing in places like India where the government with the help of some Americans,are developing de-fluoridation filters in hard hit communities.But truly, we have been conditioned with advertising, that fluoride is good for us which makes the fight harder. That and the fact that the fluoride lobby is huge, backed by lots of money, makes it an uphill battle. But even so, the government had to concede that children should not consume fluoride and that we exceed our daily dosage with food, water, medications, toothpaste, and drinks and therefore lowered the recommended ppm. That being said, there is no way to get the proper dosage as there are many variables to our consumption. We get ‘our’ fluoride from a by-product of fertilizer made in China which unfortunately has arsenic, mercury, lead and aluminum along with it. We don’t get the pleasure of even having pharmaceutical grade or naturally occurring fluoride, so in fact we get a more toxic dose,albeit smaller quantity than other countries where skeletal fluorosis is rampant. What we do have though, is a huge percentage of kids with dental fluorosis and a decline in dental health where most fluoridated water communities has been used. The most fluoridated communities in the top 100 cities in the US show poor results in dental health: (1)Washington DC is only 35th in health, (2)Lexington KY is 41st in health, (3)Louisville is 68th,(4) Chicago is 53rd. In communities where they were not fluoridated, they actual did better than those that were. So it is a ridiculous idea since it doesn’t even help. Europe found this to be the case as well with their studies which is why they dropped it. Fluoride seems to be okay in minimal doses topically, but if ingested, it poses other problems. In fact the toothpaste tube says to contact poison control if ingested, I have not found a study where ingesting fluoride helps teeth, In fact, I have seen the opposite. I have found that the study that brushing with fluoride only gives very minimal results, that is not worth the risk. With all the studies available against it, it is irresponsible to use it in drinking water. Especially when one can choose it, on their own, in toothpaste. 1% of the population is allergic to fluoride. This is a fact and I wonder how many more suffer from fluoride ill effects that don’t know they are allergic to actual fluoride (it is not well known). If we go by the studies that say that 1% are allergic, that is over 3 million people affected in the US alone. I know three people allergic to fluoride and it took them all their lives to find out. They are prisoners of food and filters. So I ask you this, is promoting fluoride like you do, worth the risk? Do you have substantial evidence to support your claim that this known listed poison by the EPA helps teeth and doesn’t hurt the rest of the body? Please post a study that says fluoride does ‘not’ hurt the brain, thyroid, heart, gastro-intestinal areas of the body. If you do find them, I will be interested. Please also post any findings you have that disproves what our fluoride in our water is made of. Taking in extra toxins is not fun. Also show me proof where showering in fluoride water is safe. My friends have to have filters or their skin burns. I would like to know why fluoride is so wonderful and how it has helped our communities, now that dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities is at an all time high.It is one thing to attack a specific study that you do not like or find fault with, but with all the other numerous studies, reasons, common sense, threat to public safety, threat to children according to the EPA and the government, etc., why promote it?

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      The reasons that any organization is not working on other countries and their needs for better health in regards to fluoridation, is because all organizations, including the EPA, is having a hard time trying to get fluoride out of our drinking water here due to lobbyist. If we could get it out here, then we could be humanitarian overseas.

      This is naive and false. Nothing is stopping Frank Water from providing filtration services in India, they have been successful in doing so but they are not an anti-fluoridation organization nor do they fight community fluoridation programs.
      The Fluoride Action Network touts itself as an international organization, if they wanted to they could help sufferers of endemic fluorosis. Once again, the “harms” caused by community water fluoridation are by and large imaginary while the harms from endemic fluorosis in developing nations are very real.

      There are programs developing in places like India where the government with the help of some Americans,are developing de-fluoridation filters in hard hit communities

      Yes there are, but I see no evidence of overlap there with the activists fighting to stop fluoridation programs here in the US. Again the FAN is happy to cite studies about people in areas with endemic fluorosis but that no action for them, instead they use the genuine concern generated and misdirect that concern onto safe fluoridation programs in places like the US, INSTEAD OF HELPING THOSE PEOPLE.

      • Old Dog Says:

        “This is naive and false. Nothing is stopping Frank Water from providing filtration services in India, they have been successful in doing so but they are not an anti-fluoridation organization nor do they fight community fluoridation programs.
        The Fluoride Action Network touts itself as an international organization, if they wanted to they could help sufferers of endemic fluorosis. Once again, the “harms” caused by community water fluoridation are by and large imaginary while the harms from endemic fluorosis in developing nations are very real.”

        Umm, are you aware that the anti-fluoridation communities are grass roots and that there is no money funding them? If they are struggling to get it out here and every penny made, though miniscule, is going to get it out here, why in the world would they be working on overseas? That is like saying why isn’t America doing more for all the other countries in the world when we have hungry people here. You make no sense. Fluoride problems are real whether you realize it or not. They are trying furiously to stop this toxin. The time to work on OTHER countries, is when this country is fluoride free. I will say , there are anti-fluoride communities throughout the world and they ARE working on the problem. Even India has their own version of Fluoridealert. Why WE should do this, when our problem hasn’t been addressed, makes no sense.

        Your tone implies an anger and resentment that say, fluoridealert.org, isn’t doing more for other countries. They in particular are underfunded and fighting an uphill battle against the aluminum and fertilizer companies who pay big bucks to pay off council members and lobbyist. Money is powerful. Here, we didn’t even get to vote on fluoride. But guess what? We have to pay for it. They scammed it to us. Oh and wouldn’t you know it, the tobacco companies paid the first year? Now we are paying to fund it after that. So why the tobacco companies are in on this, I have no idea. As Deepthroat said, FOLLOW THE MONEY. If you don’t, you are a lemming. Since you seem astute at looking up data, I suggest you do just that. Research how it came into being, who is paying for it, who wants it in our water and why, who is getting rich off it, who are the lobbyists, why the taxpayers don’t get to vote on it in elections, where the fluoride is coming from and all the chemicals bound with it, etc. These are all questions to research. What puzzles me is that you have a choice whether to eat meat are not as a vegan. But what if I told you, you have no choice, you MUST eat meat. How would that make you feel? What if you were allergic to meat or it made you sick but you had no choice? There is no filter that gets fluoride out 100% in the shower (don’t think your body does not absorb it), and it is almost impossible to get it out of foods watered with it. The people I know allergic to it, cannot go out to eat, are prisoners of their food and filtered water. It isn’t a choice to not consume it. It is everywhere. So I ask you, as well as other questions you haven;t answered yet, why can’t people who want it have a CHOICE, rather than be made to take something that makes them sick and they don’t want? Don’t you want the choice to eat meat?It is considered a medication by the FDA. Why are we forced to take a medication? And why are you promoting this? Why do you think fluoridation is so good that you are willing to take our rights away to choose and put undo harm and health affects on to us? You can simply take fluoride separately or use fluoridated toothpaste. Why support making millions of people sick? What is your angle?There is no reason for fluoridation. None. Poor people can access toothpaste if they choose to. I am beginning to think that you work for these lobbyists because your reasoning and ethics make no sense, especially if you are a vegan. Unless you are a Vegan misanthrope. Because honestly, no one in their right mind who had humanity, would want to hurt others by making them ingest a poison that multiple studies prove is questionable. If even one study was questionable, I would not let my kid near it. Makes no sense. Sorry. Over here, we need no studies to show the effects. Three people I know are deeply suffering from fluoride. It isn’t even the fluoride itself, its the binding of it with other toxins that we get in our environment and food that makes those toxins stay in the system. There are calcium deposits and spurs built around the joints of these people caused by specific fluoride usage. Stomach, heart and brain problems also associated with fluoride usage according to their Doctors, who are pro fluoride. This is real, and turning a blind eye, ignoring the problems associated with fluoride is just wrong and irresponsible.

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          That is like saying why isn’t America doing more for all the other countries in the world when we have hungry people here.

          Well, there are many grassroots organizations working to alleviate hunger and poverty both here and abroad. The same is true of many other social and environmental issues.

          Charity dollars often go farther overseas, $10 to a small village in India would do more good than it would here in the US.

          Fluoride problems are real whether you realize it or not.

          Show your evidence then.

          Why WE should do this, when our problem hasn’t been addressed, makes no sense.

          Because we don’t have a problem. Endemic flurosis is the problem not water fluoridation. Its dishonest to point to studies on endemic fluorosis in places such as China as some sort of evidence that low level fluoridation is harmful. I even posted a studies that showed children getting optimal levels of fluoride doing better on an intelligence test than children getting minimal amounts.

          #6. Using the Raven’s standard progressive matrices to determine the effects of the level of fluoride in drinking water on the intellectual ability of school-age children.
          Qin L, Huo S, Chen R, Chang Y, Zhao M.

          This is another study on endemic fluoride. This study involved children from 22 villages with varying fluoride levels. An interesting finding of this study was that children with the lowest fluoride intake in the study had lower IQs than children who lived in areas with fluoride levels closer to our national standard in the US. The authors even stated, “it was discovered that both high and low fluoride had an effect on child intelligence. Fluoride levels greater than 2.0 mg/L or less than 0.2 mg/L can disrupt intellectual development.“

          As Deepthroat said, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

          That’s not how science works…that is however how conspiracy theories work

          I am beginning to think that you work for these lobbyists…

          and here we go down conspiracy lane….

          It is considered a medication by the FDA.

          When in the form of toothpastes, mouthwash, ect. The FDA does not have the mandate to regulate municipal water supplies, however, this is a red herring.

          ignoring the problems associated with fluoride is just wrong and irresponsible.

          I agree which is what anti-fluoridation advocates do when they use the suffering of people in China to whip up sympathy for their fear-based cause at home.

  5. presentandbeing Says:

    Hi there Skeptical,

    Because I hate reading really looooong, thin comments as happens when replying on your website here, I decided to do this as a new comment. Hope you don’t mind.

    I looked at your (items 3,11 & 17) in that post and there are a couple problems with your response to my comments.

    First, your post is dealing with the possibility of fluorides effect on IQ. My comments had to do with function of the thyroid and the effect of fluoride on the thyroid and the subsequent negative effect on overall health. Item #3 (your post) references high iodine and high fluoride in a specific community and mentions that there is a high prevalence of goitre in the village. Goitre is the result of significant lack of iodine getting into the thyroid resulting in a goitre or enlargement of the thyroid. That means that there is something (such as fluoride) preventing the thyroids of the people of that village from absorbing the high levels of iodine in that area. So thank you for bringing it to our attention that even high levels of iodine can’t get into the thyroid when there are high levels of fluoride present in the environment. For those who already have thyroid issues for genetic reasons (i.e. family predisposition to autoimmune diseas), the existence of fluoride in the water is a cause for concern.

    Item #11 is discussing the effect of low iodine and high fluoride and you will note that your reference mentions IQ levels of 71 in that particular group which was being studied to ascertain levels of subclinical cretinism which is arrested physical and mental development with dystrophy of bones and soft tissues, due to congenital lack of thyroid secretion. And again, thyroid absorption of iodine is significantly hampered by any fluoride and on this point I would agree that the levels of mental retardation et al, it is dependent on the levels of fluoride. I should point out that neurological cretinism is observed to have an IQ below 70 and is often accompanied by deaf-mutism and spastic paralysis as a result of iodine deficiency. So it seems pretty obvious that fluoride has a nasty effect on the growing brains of children.

    Item #17 – had to read that one a couple times, but here is what I came up with. In order to arrive at similar fluoride levels in both villages, you’d have to multiply the .5 measurement of Dading village’s exposure by 5.94 (.5 x 5.94 =2.97) Multiplying the iodine level of Dading village’s iodine exposure of 128 by 5.94 would give you an iodine level of 760 which is significantly less than the iodine levels of Lidian village which had/has 1100mg/L. So even though Lidian village has far more iodine in their water than Dading village does, it is still not enough to even have them performing at the same levels as the children in Dading Village. No matter the levels, fluoride interferes with the thyroid’s ability to function and it interferes with brain growth/activity. It may interfere a lot or it may inerfere a little, but it interferes. And since iodine is critical to our thyroids, which are critical to living and health, it seems to me that adding something which really wasn’t tested before they started adding it to the water is careless and misguided.

    If I were to present to you anecdotal evidence for the health benefits of anything, you would be quick to demand peer reviewed studies, etc., to back up my claims. And yet it is my understanding that the addition of fluoride to North American water was done pretty much based on anecdotal evidence. Fluorides effect on teeth was NOTICED in China in a couple villages, and subsequently, based on that observation, a decision was made to test the idea in Michigan in two cities, about 60 years ago. It was supposed to last for 15 years but actually ended about half way through that because by that time, several other US cities were already adding it to the water. I guess since the authorities couldn’t see bodies in the street, they decided it was safe. Even the FDA whom I have little respect for, wouldn’t accept that under normal circumstances. Try peddling your turmeric supplement with that on your label .

    And looking at the ADA website statement on fluoride, the only mention is fewer cavities and cost effectiveness with no mention of any other studies done to determine the effect on health other than oral. Why are there no studies that look at fluoride and the heart, thyroid, kidneys, growth patterns of bones, etc.? Just a 60 year old anecdotal look at a couple of cities and that being abandoned half way through.

    As I’ve been looking at things here and keeping in mind your brief admonition to check out your other post, I am reminded that I had mentioned the video done by the retired head of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Dr. David Kennedy, who urges the viewer to not accept fluoridation of the water. I would assume that he could be construed as an expert on the subject and yet you haven’t actually addressed that, nor the effects of fluoride on other aspects of health. Just because one chooses not to give due attention to these things, doesn’t make them go away.

    I think that you are skeptical to a degree but in this instance you don’t go far enough and have bought into something here for personal reasons. And don’t get me wrong, we all do that at various points in our life, but this is an issue that concerns health and most particularly the growing bodies and minds of our children and the idea that a toxic industrial waste product can be added to our water with nothing more than anecdotes to testify to its efficacy and safety is strange beyond belief.

    And while you choose to get on a soapbox about some organization who wants to protect my drinking water, and castigate them for not also trying to make sweep improvements in the environmental toxins of another country, I can only ask why you are reluctant to give consideration to what is actually known about the health effects of that same toxin which not only occurs naturally, but in our case is added to our water by a government which never actually studied it?

    Anyway, had my say, and I and my thyroid will just fade into the sunset, with our fingers crossed that the day may come sooner rather than later, when fluoride will no longer be added so casually to public drinking water.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      No matter the levels, fluoride interferes with the thyroid’s ability to function and it interferes with brain growth/activity. It may interfere a lot or it may inerfere a little, but it interferes.

      This is a baseless statement and is not supported by the scientific literature. You are ignoring dose-response. In fact I posted a study that showed children exposed to optimal levels of fluoride had higher IQ than children with fluoride levels below the level use in community fluoridation. This would be counter to what you are claiming.

      #6. Using the Raven’s standard progressive matrices to determine the effects of the level of fluoride in drinking water on the intellectual ability of school-age children.
      Qin L, Huo S, Chen R, Chang Y, Zhao M.

      This is another study on endemic fluoride. This study involved children from 22 villages with varying fluoride levels. An interesting finding of this study was that children with the lowest fluoride intake in the study had lower IQs than children who lived in areas with fluoride levels closer to our national standard in the US. The authors even stated, “it was discovered that both high and low fluoride had an effect on child intelligence. Fluoride levels greater than 2.0 mg/L or less than 0.2 mg/L can disrupt intellectual development.“

      This study also seems to refute your claim, kids with normal fluoride getting iodine supplements had the highest scores

      #11. The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang.
      Lin FF, Aihaiti, Zhao HX, Lin J, Jiang JY, Maimaiti, and Aiken

      We studied a total of 769 schoolchildren of 7-14 years in three areas, characterized by intakes of (A) low iodine, high fluoride; (B) low iodine, normal fluoride; and (C) iodine supplemented, normal fluoride. Results for the following parameters for areas A, B, and C, respectively were: (a) average IQ: 71,77,96

      You write as if these studies vindicate your claim regarding thyroid effects, yet they are not about community water fluoridation nor were such effects seen at the level used in the US. That’s probably the biggest part of the problem here, ignoring dose response. Yes fluoride is harmful, at a sufficient dose, below that however it can be beneficial.

      added to our water by a government which never actually studied it?

      That is simply false there is plenty of research behind fluoridation and fluoride safety.
      Here are three systematic reviews of water fluoridation and safety. This one looked at 214 studies and concluded that there “was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects” beyond aesthetic dental fluorosis in some of the population at levels above 1ppm.
      This one looked at 77 papers and concluded that “fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride.”
      This one looked at 59 publications including 3 systematic reviews and 3 guidelines and found that “with the exception of dental fluorosis, no association between adverse effects and water fluoridation has been established. Water fluoridation reduces caries for all social classes, and there is some evidence that it may reduce the oral health gap between social classes.”

  6. Old Dog Says:

    “With the exception of dental fluorosis”. Um…that freaking costs from $1000 on up to fix. I am sure poor people would appreciate that! If it is in the bone teeth for life, where else is it? Think about it. And out of the 59 studies, only 3 can they name as being good? What were the other 56 studies? There was a study a few years back that looked at fluoride in all the major cities. Where they were fluoridated the most, their dental health was the worst. Communities that were not fluoridated, favored better. So you better try again on that. And the “77” one, was hand picked out of 5418 studies!!!!!!! What are you trying to sell here? What about the other thousands of studies? And the first one, “RESULTS: 214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate.” Your evidence is very very very poor. The bottom line is, if there is any doubt, don’t risk our lives.They thought cigarettes were healthy too. But at least they didn’t MAKE us smoke them. It is reckless to continue something that has so much doubt and problems with it, when it can be handled on an individual basis. Btw, I am still waiting for responses to all my questions.

    • Gopiballava Says:

      Old Dog: Did you follow through and read what the inclusion criteria were? The full text of the 214 study analysis is available for free. They go into detail explaining how they chose the studies to include. They used pre-defined criteria. They didn’t make up new ideas out of whole cloth to exclude the studies they didn’t want to include.

      Can you explain what is actually wrong with the inclusion criteria? Or do you object to any inclusion / exclusion criteria at all? There are a lot of obviously poorly performed studied out there.

      • Old Dog Says:

        Gopiballava, if you click on the links Skeptical Vegan gave it says ” the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality.” So how are we supposed to get behind these inclusive studies if they are low quality? Are we supposed to suspend our disbelief. The bottom line is, there are way to many questions to consider fluoridation. To be prudent, one must pause all poison until adequate assessment can be made. You don;t do something, then ask questions later. And once again, why can’t we take this on our own, individually rather than make people sick? This stuff has other toxins in it. You folks seem to be okay with ingesting arsenic, lead, mercury and aluminum. Have you lost your minds?

        • Gopiballava Says:

          Old Dog: What makes you think I didn’t click on the link? I corrected you on the content of the link.

          Can you explain the technical differences between a low quality and high quality study, and what sort of conclusions are safe to draw from each kind?

          “one must pause all poison until adequate assessment can be made”

          It is your judgement that the assessment is inadequate. Given your assertions elsewhere on this thread that your personal lack of cavities disproves the fluoride hypothesis, your understanding of the basics of this are simply lacking.

          That doesn’t mean your conclusions are wrong. Rather, your reasoning is objectively wrong. Nobody believes that fluoride is absolutely necessary for every person to not have cavities. Your lack of cavities disproves nothing; your apparent belief that it disproves something demonstrates you don’t understand the claims of scientists.

          • Old Dog Says:

            I have made multiple comments including cited studies throughout the various posts that Skeptical V posted on fluoride. I am not sure if you have read those. But I have given adequate support. I have yet to hear from SV to respond to some of them. Maybe you didn’t catch my other posts, but it is a bit tiring to repeat. I have interjected personal disclosure also, knowing full well it holds no weight.My point in sharing is to show a human side to this, as 3 very dear people of mine are suffering from fluoride. There is another way more effective and less harmful

            • Gopiballava Says:

              “I have made multiple comments including cited studies throughout the various posts that Skeptical V posted on fluoride. I am not sure if you have read those”

              No, I haven’t read the other ones. I don’t like repeating myself either, so I’ll just ask for your citation on the harmful quantities of pollutants that are included in municipal fluoride supplies.

              I’m pretty sure that’s an easy and straightforward thing to measure.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              no you haven’t, you have cited a statement and a report (which didn’t really support what you were saying about allergies very well). Beyond that you haven’t provided any scientific evidence of harm from community water fluoridation or cited studies. And I DID respond to the two citations you did make. Please quote where you have cited other studies.

            • Gopiballava Says:

              Old Dog: You wrote,
              “I have interjected personal disclosure also, knowing full well it holds no weight.”
              But you also wrote:
              “I am living proof your fluoride is a lie.”

              I look forward to your explanation of how that statement is *not* an assertion that your personal dental health disproves anything.

  7. Old Dog Says:

    Oh and one more thing. I grew up in a place that didn’t fluoridate until a few years ago. I have no cavities. Been to the dentist twice in my life for a cleaning and check up. Didn’t use toothpaste but rather baking soda every third day. I don’t even brush everyday. I refuse to use mouthwash. My dentist told me that whatever I was doing, I should continue, because my teeth were beautiful and he had never seen anything like it. No cleaning required. I am over middle age. I come from a lower economic level. I am living proof your fluoride is a lie. And it isn’t good genes. My parents who grew up in fluoridated water have terrible teeth.

    • Anna Says:

      You said you’ve only seen a dentist twice in your life. When was your last dentist visit?

      • Old Dog Says:

        I have to make a correction. I saw the dentist when I was 5, again at 22 to take wisdom teeth out only (which I didn’t count), then when I was 30 for a teeth cleaning, and then recently last year when my insurance was going to be canceled. Just wanted to use it before it was gone. My dentist also served my dad. My dentist was pro fluoride and was quite impressed that I don’t use toothpaste. He said there is a risk of gums receding with baking soda, but he saw no signs on me and I am in my late 40’s and have been doing it for years. I don;t brush everyday which may freak people out, but my sweetheart says I have never had bad breath. The paper used to wipe off the hook to clean at the dentist, had nothing on it. No plaque. The baking soda keeps a ph in my mouth that doesn’t allow bad bacteria. A better solution to teeth is to use a non aluminum baking soda mixture, stay away from sodas, sugar and highly acidic foods, floss (which I don’t do, but it is good to do), and eat well balanced healthy foods.. It is really that simple. This should be applied to all health. We do not need the packaged fluoride that comes bundled with all the other chemicals. It makes no sense to put people at risk.

        • Gopiballava Says:

          My wife seems to have very, very few dental problems and doesn’t brush as well as I do. I brush well and have more problems.

          Obviously, brushing your teeth with the thoroughness that dentists suggest is a bad idea, right?

          You seem to be implying that your experience invalidates the claims of scientists on this topic. It does not. When dealing with large populations, you work with statistics and the odds of different outcomes.

          Nobody is claiming that every single person who doesn’t use fluoridated toothpaste will get cavities. Rather, they are saying that fluoride reduces the odds of getting cavities. Your personal experience can’t be used be used to invalidate that claim. You need a large sample set to analyze the claim.

          • Old Dog Says:

            Believe me i know that my measly little personal experience does not warrant evidence. I realize it is not valid. It is just a personal experience. I am not advocating to brush less. It is just with baking soda, it cleans it well enough to let it go for more days is all. It develops a smooth surface that food doesn’t cling to. It just falls off it. But what is concerning that Truth seeker has not addressed, is how they can promote fluoridation when the stuff we get comes from China packages with lead, arsenic, mercury and aluminum. Since fluoride is a binding agent to metals ,which is why it is used in medications because of its efficacy in attaching to calcium, it also attaches to calcium in the body the other toxins it is bundled up with. This is itself a very dangerous thing. Fluoride by its lonesome in small doses topically, gives MINIMAL tooth surface building. But even so I would say, sure use it topically. My problem is not topic fluoride, but ingested fluoride. I know 3 people that are sick from it and though i showed skeptical Vegan a government report stating that 1% of the population is allergic to it, they dismissed it. That is 3 million people. SV dismissed the government study and didn’t think it valid. SV throws out all studies , even the EPA, FDA or government. SV only wants to read the studies that are considered “poor” for their case. It is irresponsible to not look at the studies, the other multiple reasons why not to fluoridate (lack of efficacy, extra toxins, allergies and forcing people to take an unregulated medication. )That is not good analysis to turn away. That is such a disrespect to my 3 loved ones and friend who suffer from this allergy. More and more people are developing sicknesses and it is my opinion that 1% is too little. Take the case of fibromyalgia. Why did my loved one’s fibromyalgia support group get 40% better after eliminating fluoride water from their showers, drinking, fluoride rich foods and meds? I realize I have no study to support this, but it is the truth. There is a great video on how fluoride kills mitachondria. Fibro people have problems with their mitachondria not functioning properly. There may be a link there. See this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhYChSJzAaA. Fluoride does not flush out entirely either. 20% stays in the body. 20% of anything non organic staying in the body is dangerous. there are too many risks to keep doing it. Again I say, just let people do it on their own? What is so wrong with that? Why are you against just letting people make the choice? It makes no sense! Cavities have NOT gone down in fluoridated communities, but fluorosis has gone up…a lot. Now poor people have to pay enormous amounts of money to get it fixed. Did it save any costs? NO!!!!!Your reasoning to support this makes no financial, ethical sense.

        • Anna Says:

          See, I grew up in a place where the water wasn’t fluoridated either. I also have never had a cavity.

          So what, though? There were about 2 million other people using the water where I grew up, too, and I’m sure a lot of them had cavities. What makes stories like yours and mine not particularly interesting is that, taken out of the larger context, there is no way to evaluate them.

          Behold, more confounding factors from my childhood: I brushed my teeth (with fluoridated toothpaste) at least twice a day. My parents took me to regular dentist appointments. I never drank soda (other than the first sip to establish I hated the stuff, a second sip that I thought was water, and a few more sips when I had to gag something down to be polite). After my childhood, I continued to brush after every meal, I went about seven years without seeing a dentist, and moved to another locale in which the water was still not fluoridated.

          Take a third hypothetical person, who’s always lived in a place with fluoridated water, has never had a cavity, and has a different range of habits and histories. How is a person to evaluate all this data? They can’t! You need to look at large populations to tease out all the variables. Your anecdotes about your own dental hygiene are pretty meaningless, as far as its power to inform someone else’s decisions goes.

          The reason I use fluoridated toothpaste (harder to find than it should be, since many of my fellow vegans are so chemophobic), brush after every meal, try my best to floss often, and see a dentist is because the large-scale evidence suggests these are best practices. Not to mention the evidence we have about the microbiome of the mouth (the bacteria that cause bad breath are different from those that cause tooth decay by the way, and not being habitat to one species doesn’t mean you’re not hosting the others).

          • Old Dog Says:

            If you read the other part of this thread in reply to Gobi, I addressed the “so what?”. Maybe you can click the box that notifies you of all discussions on this thread. There is a lot there from all parties. It is quite a discussion.

    • Ewan R Says:

      Anecdata, just like data, only without being remotely valid.

  8. skepticalvegan Says:

    how they can promote fluoridation when the stuff we get comes from China packages with lead, arsenic, mercury and aluminum.

    You need to cite this claim.

    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.

    NSF presents a detailed fact sheet on the documented quality of fluoride additives.

    personally I would be more worried about the amount of metal contaminates my hot water heater introduces to my water (and even that I’m not too worried about)

    i showed skeptical Vegan a government report stating that 1% of the population is allergic to it, they dismissed it.

    No you didn’t, you cited a govt report that admitted while there were “few case reports of GI upset in subjects” that the “available data are not robust enough to determine whether that is the case.” They are saying there are sporadic case reports but no actual evidence. It certainly doesn’t say anything about 1%.
    I didn’t dismiss it, I explained it.
    This is the same level of non-evidence we have for imaginary illnesses like Morgellons and Wifi sensitivity.

    SV throws out all studies , even the EPA, FDA or government

    No I haven’t, I’ve engaged with every study presented and even gone farther by engaging with studies listed by the FAN too. You are the one dismissing studies, you have absolutely no understanding of how a systematic reviews works or selection criteria and out of ignorance dismiss three large reviews. You also keep mentioning the EPA, FDA and govt as if they support you position. Let me be clear, THEY DO NOT. The US govt supports fluoridation as does the majority of the scientific community.

    You also keep claim that we don’t get to vote on fluoridation. I’m not sure about you locality but plenty of communities do vote on it. http://www.ada.org/sections/advocacy/pdfs/us_fluoridation.pdf

    • Old Dog Says:

      I tell you what Skeptical Vegan. I know you don’t like this site I am posting, but here is your chance to put the claims to rest. Here are 50 comprehensive reasons why fluoridation should end. If you can respond/refute all 50 reasons, you will have me converted. You will win and I will admit I am wrong. I would like to see the studies refuting their references. I would like to know what you think of all those issues, even the ethical ones that i don;t see you addressing. I want to know if you know something I am not privy to. http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

      • gopiballava Says:

        Old Dog: You claimed that there were lots and lots of different impurities in municipal fluoride. The list of 50 reasons only mentioned arsenic. Can you provide evidence for that problem?

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          Gopi, while I’m not sure where the claim originated, I did address it here https://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/fluoride-the-brain-strike-3-youre-out/#comment-1641

        • Old Dog Says:

          Ninety percent of the fluoride we use to fluoridate U.S. water systems comes directly from the pollution scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Recently, there has been some concern among clean water activists about the purity of this industrial grade fluoride, known as hydrofluosilicic acid. As investigative journalist George Glasser has pointed out, this hydrofluosilicic acid contains trace amounts of numerous heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic.

          Proponents of fluoridation, however, claim that while heavy metals are found in the acid, they are at such low levels as to be of no concern. As Thomas Reeves of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently stated, “the point I’m trying to make is it’s really not a problem” (Wenatchee World, October 20, 2000).

          After a quick look at the numbers, Reeves would seem to be right. After all, the hydrofluosilicic acid is diluted down approximately 240,000 times when added into the public’s drinking water. If, therefore, these heavy metals are in concentrations of parts per million in the undiluted fluorosilicic acid, they will be much lower after being diluted down 240,000 to 1.

          However, while this argument sounds legitimate, a careful look at the numbers reveals a different picture.

          Take for instance, arsenic.

          In a recent letter (July 7, 2000) to Congress, NSF International (National Sanitation Foundation) submitted the results of tests it has conducted on hydrofluosilicic acid over the past few years. According to the NSF, the most common contaminant found was arsenic. (Arsenic was found about 5 times more frequently than any other contaminant and at considerably higher levels).

          While not all hydrofluosilicic acid was found to contain arsenic, the NSF states that where found, the average level of arsenic in the acid would lead to arsenic levels in water, after dilution, of 0.43 parts per billion (ppb). (When the “non-detects” are factored in, the average arsenic level would be 0.1 ppb; see http://www.fluoridealert.org/NSF-letter.pdf ). The maximum levels of arsenic found by the NSF would result in arsenic levels in water of 1.66 parts per billion.

          Putting the numbers into Perspective

          To the ordinary person, these numbers may seem small and insignificant, which is exactly what the NSF and the CDC’s Thomas Reeves claim. However, in examining their arguments, one finds that the NSF and Reeves are basing their reasoning on the fact that 0.43 parts per billion arsenic falls below the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). In other words, they are looking to the letter of the law, and the letter of the law says having this much arsenic in water is ok.

          But the letter of the law on arsenic is currently under serious challenge.

          According to a 1999 review done by the National Academy of Sciences, “it is the subcommittee’s consensus that the current EPA MCL for arsenic in drinking water of 50 µg/L (50 parts per billion) does not achieve EPA’s goal for public-health protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as possible.”

          The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) states that the EPA’s current Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic, “is grossly inadequate for protecting public health.” The NRDC points out that the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level was set in 1942, “before arsenic was known to cause cancer.” Arsenic, which has since been classified as a Class 1 human carcinogen, is now known to cause cancer of the skin, and cancer of the internal organs, particularly the lung and bladder.

          In light of the growing accumulation of scientific literature on arsenic, the NRDC is currently calling on the EPA to set a new Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic at 3 parts per billion. However, the NRDC argues that even 3 parts per billion is not a satisfactory level. For as they state, “Based on an extrapolation of NAS’s risk estimates, even a relatively strict arsenic standard of 3 ppb could pose a fatal cancer risk several times higher than EPA has traditionally accepted in drinking water.”

          In fact, based on risk estimates from the National Academy of Sciences, just 0.5 parts per billion arsenic in water “presents the highest cancer risk EPA traditionally allows in tap water” (see chart 1 below) (NRDC, 2000). Using NAS data, and assuming a linear dose response, the NRDC estimates that drinking water containing 0.5 parts per billion presents the public with a 1 in 10,000 risk of developing cancer.

          Recent epidemiological work from Finland (Kurttio, et. al, 1999) found that people drinking water with 0.1 to 0.5 parts per billion arsenic, had an approximately 50 percent greater risk of getting bladder cancer than people drinking water with arsenic levels less than 0.1 parts per billion (NRDC, 2000). The range 0.1 to 0.5 ppb is the range of arsenic we can expect to add to the water from the use of hydrofluosilicic acid.

          In conclusion: What do we know?

          * 90% of the fluoride used to fluoridate US water systems comes from the pollution scrubbing devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is industrial grade, not pharmaceutical grade.

          * The most common contaminant found with the captured fluoride acid (hydrofluosilicic acid) is arsenic.

          * When detected, the average amount of arsenic found in the acid would lead to levels of arsenic in drinking water of 0.43 parts per billion.

          * If we include the samples that did not contain arsenic, the average amount of arsenic fluoridation is adding to the water would be 0.1 ppb.

          * The level of arsenic in hydrofluosilicic acid varies, reaching levels high enough to produce concentrations of 1.66 parts per billion in water.

          * According to risk estimates from the National Academy of Sciences, water containing 0.5 parts per billion arsenic presents a 1 in 10,000 risk of developing cancer.

          * A study from Finland (Kurttio, et al, 1999) found that people drinking water with 0.1 to 0.5 parts per billion arsenic had a 50% greater risk of developing bladder cancer than people drinking water with less than 0.1 ppb.

          References: http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/arsenic/aolinx.asp

          Hazan, Stan (2000). Letter to Florida Department of Health from Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, National Sanitation Foundation International. 24 April 2000. http://www.fluoridealert.org/NSF-Letter.pdf

          Hazan, Stan. (2000). Letter to Rep. Ken Calvert from Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, National Sanitation Foundation International. 7 July 2000. http://www.citizens.org/Food_Water_Safety/Fluoridation/Materials/NSF_response.pdf

          • skepticalvegan Says:

            Old Dog, can you really not make your own arguments? Quoting things is fine when its accompanied with some commentary or analysis, but all you did here was copy and paste some outdated information from fluoride alert.

            The current EPA standard for arsenic is 10 ppb

            from the CDC

            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.

            Recent epidemiological work from Finland (Kurttio, et. al, 1999) found that people…

            The Finnish study is far from definitive. This is a common tactic called cherry-picking.
            Here is a little more recent info about the state of this issue,

            Some showed a positive association between relatively low doses of arsenic and cancers of the skin, prostate, and bladder (Knobeloch et al. 2006; Kurttio et al. 1999; Lewis et al. 1999), whereas others showed no such effects (Bates et al. 1995; Karagas et al. 2001; Steinmaus et al. 2003). One study showed a nonsignificant decreasing risk for bladder cancer with increasing exposure to arsenic in the range of 3–60 μg/L (Lamm et al. 2004), and Karagas et al. (2002) found a U-shaped dose–response relation between exposure to arsenic and non-melanoma skin cancer, with a decreased risk at low levels and increased risk at higher levels. The existence of a threshold for the carcinogenic effect of arsenic has been debated, especially in the United States (Abernathy et al. 1996; Schoen et al. 2004), and some studies have suggested an interaction between exposure to arsenic and smoking in the causation of cancers of the lung, bladder and skin (Bates et al. 1995; Ferreccio et al. 2000; Knobeloch et al. 2006; Steinmaus et al. 2003; Tsuda et al. 1995).

            • Old Dog Says:

              You seem to have issue with cherry picking studies. I don’t quite understand the issue with that, but I am waiting eagerly to see what your reply is to the 50 reasons not to fluoridate are. I think if you can adequately respond to all 50, you have won the argument. Otherwise, you don’t have a case. I am very interested in seeing how you respond to all the issues.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              take your Gish Gallop else where, learn to make your own arguments.

            • Gopiballava Says:

              @Old Dog:

              I am not interested in debating 50 points with somebody who can’t either:
              a) Defend one point or, alternately,
              b) Admit they were wrong

              You claimed that there were significant impurities other than arsenic in the fluoride added to municipal water supplies. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence for this claim, or admit that the claim is false.

              Until you have demonstrated your ability to carry on a coherent discussion on one point at a time, I am not interested in wasting my time trying to discuss 50 points at a time.

            • Old Dog Says:

              To Skeptical Vegan And Gobi….Hmm, I asked Skeptical Vegan to respond to the 50 reasons, yet Gopiballava responded. Perhaps you two are one in the same? In either case, you have demonstrated that you are not capable of responding to the challenge which you know you will lose. I have argued my points, gave examples, responded, however in many cases, I did not get a response to my arguments from Skeptical Vegan. I did argue intelligibly and responded with studies, but those were not good enough (even by the government) and I am beginning to think nothing will suffice. Not only that but when I made valid points, they were completely ignored. So it is a little the pot calling the kettle black. These last two responses from Gobi and Skeptical, are cop outs to a losing argument on your behalf. I would very much like to see your intelligent responses though, because yes, I think you are capable of producing them and thinking things though. I have always wanted to know what the other side felt about those 50 responses, so that I could have a better understanding of all sides of the issue. By not responding though, it appears you have nothing to offer and I win the argument. This however does not tell me what the other side thinks and I truly wish I did. Aren’t you up for a challenge? Because we can argue over one point here and one point there, but ultimately if there is ONE important reason out of 50 to not fluoridate, it should not be done, especially when people have the opportunity to fluoridate/medicate themselves (I don’t force you to eat meat do I?) So is this your defeat or do you have some fight still left in you?

            • Gopiballava Says:

              @Old Dog:

              “Hmm, I asked Skeptical Vegan to respond to the 50 reasons, yet Gopiballava responded”

              I clicked that little “notify me” box when I posted. Nothing mysterious there. I’ve met Skeptical Vegan two or three times, but discussions here are virtually the only time we talk about things – and we definitely don’t agree about everything.

              “In either case, you have demonstrated that you are not capable of responding to the challenge which you know you will lose”

              I know *you* will think I’ve lost, because you have already demonstrated your unwillingness to admit when you’re wrong.

              “I have argued my points, gave examples, responded”

              Sometimes you have, yes. Other times, you haven’t. Still haven’t heard a citation for harmful quantities of the long list of contaminants that you asserted were present.

              “Not only that but when I made valid points, they were completely ignored”

              I’m sorry if I did that; please tell me which points *you* made that were ignored.

              “These last two responses from Gobi and Skeptical, are cop outs to a losing argument on your behalf.”

              No, I just don’t see the point in debating somebody who acts like you’ve acted. You’ve made claims that you won’t back up, you’ve cut and pasted text from third party sources without attribution, and you’ve made (and then denied making) claims that directly contradict the scientific method. You said,

              “I am living proof your fluoride is a lie.”

              No, you’re not living proof of that. I haven’t seen you acknowledge that your statement was ridiculous, or explain why you made it. Were you ignorant of the claims of fluoridation’s effects? Or were you just appealing to emotion?

              “By not responding though, it appears you have nothing to offer and I win the argument.”

              You’re welcome to believe that. Contradictory facts haven’t changed your opinion so far, and I don’t expect them to.

              “but ultimately if there is ONE important reason out of 50 to not fluoridate, it should not be done”

              I see the caveat, “important”. 3, 4, 5 are things to investigate, *not* reasons not to fluoridate. If the results of the investigation indicate a problem, then something should be done.

              I’m curious, how long have you spent following up the citations on that list of 50 items? How long do you think I’d need to spend on each item to have a meaningful discussion about them?

              I literally do not have the time to do that. Properly fact-checking things like this takes a very long time.

              Looking at one of their points, 41. Claims that arsenic was “up to” 1.6 ppb. In fact, the highest according to the NSF was 0.6, the average was 0.12 ppb, and 57% of samples had no detectable quantities.

              Cite:
              http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf

              When I find inaccuracies this quickly in a long list, I stop. It’s not worth my time if they can’t be bothered to put out accurate and updated information.

            • Old Dog Says:

              There are many comments you make Gobi, that are unwarranted. I did reply to most of your comments and either you didn’t read them, or want to beat a dead resolved horse. I already addressed the human personal factor story. Did you read my response? I will address the contaminants question you raise soon as that has not been addressed on my part. Pointing fingers when you and SV behave in the same manner you claim I do, is not going to win an argument. But the bottom line is, there are 50 reasons to not fluoridate. They are valid and have merit. It is easy for you and SV to name call and say that I have no valid points therefore you are not going to answer my questions, but that is a cop out plain and simple. It reminds me of kids who lose at a game and flip the board over refusing to play. Here is you and SV’s chance to truly stick it to the anti-fluoride people by really addressing all their points and you refuse to do it. As far as points I made that were not addressed, I have asked if vegans would like it very much if they were FORCED to eat meat when there was an option to choose another way. Hopefully someone can answer that. We are forced to take something that makes us sick and even with the expensive filters, we cannot escape it entirely. Do you think it right to be forced to eat meat? I know of a woman that gets deathly ill eating any meat. People who get reactions to fluoride feel that are also forced the same way to sacrifice their health with this mandatory medication. Do you think this right? SV glosses over the government study that say that 3 million people are affected by fluoride. Flouride IS optional. So this forcing is ridiculous. I also didn’t get a response to another question. How is this saving taxpayer’s money in a bad economy or helping improve the lives of kids when 32% of them are getting fluorosis and have to pay $1000 or more to get their teeth fixed? What are we saving here? Getting cavities filled is way cheaper than that. In fact it is costs poor people more since poor people do not get cosmetic dental covered with County. So who is making money here? Where is the savings? How is this helping anyone? So maybe you or SV can answer my previous questions that were not answered. But frankly I still want to here responses to the 50 reasons. This is your chance to flex your intelligent power and win the argument.

            • Gopiballava Says:

              @Old Dog:
              “But the bottom line is, there are 50 reasons to not fluoridate”

              49. I demonstrated that one of them was *objectively wrong*. Please adjust your claim accordingly.

              Of the 50 reasons, how many of the citations have you read?

              Tell you what. You choose one numbered reason, one that provides citations, and *read* the citations. See if they match up with the claims. Give me your opinions on how accurate and relevant each citation is. I will look up contradictory citations and give you my opinions.

            • Old Dog Says:

              I see you are still not going to address my other questions in my last post. Just going to pass over them again eh? Is it fair to point fingers and be hypocritical about it?

            • Gopiballava Says:

              @Old Dog:
              “I see you are still not going to address my other questions in my last post.”

              Nope, I am not going to address your *new* points until you have addressed my *old* points.

              If you can’t admit when one of your sources is objectively wrong, there’s no point in even calling this a “debate”.

              It’s been days since I asked you to provide a citation for the supposed contaminants, and you haven’t.

              Earlier today I demonstrated a problem with one of your 50 reasons. Not only have you ignored the problem, you’ve continued to claim you have 50 points.

              If you want to go through and make a timeline and figure out who ignored who first, go at it.

              But you have not merely ignored my points, you have made positive claims re-asserting the accuracy of your claims without any explanation.

            • Old Dog Says:

              Um they are not “new” points. They are actually old prior to the arsenic ones. They have not been addressed. And I will address the arsenic. Now can you or SV address my old points?

            • Gopiballava Says:

              @Old Dog:
              “Now can you or SV address my old points?”

              I already asked you which points you felt weren’t properly addressed. Presumably, you have some in mind that you are thinking of?

              Or are you asking me to go through the entire conversation, read everything that everybody said and responded to, and determine which points weren’t properly addressed? And, hopefully, come up with the points that you are thinking of at this moment?

              If you remember what points were ignored, just *tell* me. Cut and paste the paragraphs that were ignored. It’s easier than expecting me to read your mind.

            • Old Dog Says:

              “Cut and paste the paragraphs that were ignored. It’s easier than expecting me to read your mind.” Huh?…I just reposted them this last hour for the 3rd time. They are old and never were addressed. They are old points and were the ones you claimed are “new”, so you did read them but now you say you can’t read my mind? I will post them again for the 4th time. Here they are: “As far as points I made that were not addressed, I have asked if vegans would like it very much if they were FORCED to eat meat when there was an option to choose another way. Hopefully someone can answer that. We are forced to take something that makes us sick and even with the expensive filters, we cannot escape it entirely. Do you think it right to be forced to eat meat? I know of a woman that gets deathly ill eating any meat. People who get reactions to fluoride feel that are also forced the same way to sacrifice their health with this mandatory medication. Do you think this right? SV glosses over the government study that say that 3 million people are affected by fluoride. Flouride IS optional. So this forcing is ridiculous. I also didn’t get a response to another question. How is this saving taxpayer’s money in a bad economy or helping improve the lives of kids when 32% of them are getting fluorosis and have to pay $1000 or more to get their teeth fixed? What are we saving here? Getting cavities filled is way cheaper than that. In fact it costs poor people more since poor people do not get cosmetic dental covered with County. So who is making money here? Where is the savings? How is this helping anyone?”

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              I address all these points here.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Now can you or SV address my old points?

              I have here.

            • Old Dog Says:

              “Not only have you ignored the problem”. Do you read the comments, or not? I said I would get back to you which is not ignoring and is more than was said about my old points never being addressed. I have been out of town this last week and am playing catch up. I did not ignore you. You are very insistent on this one particular angle of the fluoride debate and I will address it. However ignoring the other 49 reasons, is a quite perplexing. But let me ask you this. If I write several points that do not get addressed, or even commented on, how do you expect the same in return? This is what I mean by hypocrisy.

            • Gopiballava Says:

              @Old Dog:
              “I said I would get back to you which is not ignoring”

              I believe you only said that today; it’s been a week since I asked…

              “and is more than was said about my old points never being addressed.”

              I said I was sorry and asked you which points were ignored. You wrote a very large block of text and didn’t make it clear that you were including old points in it.

              “I have been out of town this last week and am playing catch up.”

              I’ve been out of town since 2 June, working 7 days/week. Are we calculating points? 🙂

              “We are forced to take something that makes us sick and even with the expensive filters, we cannot escape it entirely”

              It doesn’t make you sick in the quantities added to municipal water systems.

              “How is this saving taxpayer’s money in a bad economy or helping improve the lives of kids when 32% of them are getting fluorosis and have to pay $1000 or more to get their teeth fixed?”

              *If* your claim is true, *then* I would agree with your conclusion.

              Honestly, your questions here seem utterly ridiculous. Do you really have that shallow a grasp of what proponents of fluoride claim? We are disagreeing with your initial claims about the level of harm.

              Of course I agree that if 32% of kids are getting severe fluorosis that we have a problem. But that number is much higher than what I’ve seen from reliable sources.

            • Old Dog Says:

              “I’ve been out of town since 2 June, working 7 days/week. Are we calculating points?” This is a bit of an ill mannered and snarky response. I am sorry that I could not accommodate you, nor SV, though I had no phone or internet for appx. a week while at a funeral. I am currently trying to catch up with literally hundreds of emails as well as work. So if you can both be patient, I will reply to both your points since you both put effort into them. It requires going into my archives on another computer to bring up what I would like to present.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              As far as points I made that were not addressed, I have asked if vegans would like it very much if they were FORCED to eat meat when there was an option to choose another way. Hopefully someone can answer that. We are forced to take something that makes us sick and even with the expensive filters, we cannot escape it entirely. Do you think it right to be forced to eat meat? I know of a woman that gets deathly ill eating any meat.

              Actually a number of municipalities DO use animal products in water treatment. But a more apt comparison is to another public health issue, vaccination. I’m quite in favor of vaccine mandates even though vaccines contain animal products.
              Government by its nature is paternalistic. As long as there is one and they are taking my money, I find public health to be one of the most important aspects of focus. Public health dollars should be used efficiently, fluoridation is a more efficient use of these funds than paying for cavities (& other health impacts such as cardiovascular disease) afterwards.

              SV glosses over the government study that say that 3 million people are affected by fluoride.

              NO I DO NOT. NO SUCH STUDY HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
              Ive already addressed this claim here.

              “There are a few case reports of GI upset in subjects exposed to drinking water fluoridated at 1 mg/L. Those effects were observed in only a small number of cases, which suggest hypersensitivity. However, the available data are not robust enough to determine whether that is the case.

              I does not say 3 million people, it says there are a small number of CASE REPORTS with no robust supporting data. You know what else we have case reports of? WIFI allergy, alien abductions, Bigfoot sightings, morgellons, ect. Case reports are not reliable evidence, period.
              I also don’t know where you are gettign “3 million” cases of life threatening allergy making people “prisoners of filters” from “a few case reports of GI upset”

              How is this saving taxpayer’s money in a bad economy or helping improve the lives of kids when 32% of them are getting fluorosis and have to pay $1000 or more to get their teeth fixed?

              First of all you NEED TO CITE YOUR CLAIMS. Cite your claim that 32% of children get fluorosis requiring treatment.
              It differ quite a bit from the figure I have seen.

              Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004 and the 1986–1987 National Survey of Oral Health in U.S. School Children” showed that,

              Among persons aged 6-49, 16.0% had very mild fluorosis, 4.8% had mild fluorosis, 2.0% had moderate fluorosis, and less than 1% had severe fluorosis

              so where are you getting your inflated figures?

              So who is making money here? Where is the savings? How is this helping anyone?

              Have you bothered to look?

              Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation

              Two published studies conducted by CDC reaffirm the benefits of community water fluoridation. Together, the studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system. In fact, the economic analysis found that for larger communities of more than 20,000 people where it costs about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water, every $1 invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs.

              “An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation”1 presents the results of an economic analysis of water fluoridation under modern conditions of widespread availability of fluorides. Researchers from CDC and Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, found that under typical conditions, the annual per-person cost savings in fluoridated communities ranged from $16 in very small communities (20,000). The analysis takes into account the costs of installing and maintaining necessary equipment and operating water plants, the expected effectiveness of fluoridation, estimates of expected cavities in non-fluoridated communities, treatment of cavities, and time lost visiting the dentist for treatment.

              A related analysis found that children living in non-fluoridated communities in states that are highly fluoridated receive partial benefits of fluoridation from eating foods and drinking beverages processed in fluoridated communities. This second study, “Quantifying the Diffused Benefit from Water Fluoridation”2 reports that 12-year-old children living in states where more than half of the communities have fluoridated water have 26% fewer decayed tooth surfaces per year than 12-year-old children living in states where less than one-quarter of the communities are fluoridated.

              “Widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities even in neighboring communities that are not fluoridated,” according to Dr. Susan Griffin, the study’s main author. “For instance, a 12-year-old child who has lived in a non-fluoridated community in a highly fluoridated state would typically have one fewer cavity than a child in a low-fluoridated state.”
              References

              Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Publ Health Dent 2001;61(2):78–86. View abstract on PubMed.
              Griffin SO, Gooch BF, Lockwood SA, Tomar SL. Quantifying the diffused benefit from water fluoridation in the United States. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:120–129. View abstract on PubMed.

              Related Links

              Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. MMWR, Vol. 50, No. RR14;1-42. (August 17, 2001)
              Water Fluoridation Fact Sheet, 1992

              Date last reviewed: September 1, 2009
              Date last updated: September 1, 2009
              Content source: Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              But the bottom line is, there are 50 reasons to not fluoridate.

              This is addressed in this comment.

            • Gopiballava Says:

              @Old Dog:

              If my reply was too long:
              Point 41 is objectively inaccurate. They claim “up to” 1.6 ppb but in reality the maximum is 0.6 ppb, the average is 0.12 ppb, and 57% of samples had no detectable arsenic.
              http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf

              I am not going to spend the many hours it would take to dig deep into researching the rest of their points since they haven’t properly fact-checked them.

              I don’t waste time on sources that can’t be bothered with accuracy.

          • gopiballava Says:

            Hey OldDog, last month you said you were going to post a link to evidence that municipal fluoride had the numerous impurities you mentioned. I’m still waiting.

  9. Old Dog Says:

    And no we were NOT allowed to vote on it. It was passed in city council despite protests from the community. I live in CA, and will not disclose my location due to the info about my nephew working for the water company. (I do not want him to get fired). They were able to do it because taxpayers didn’t pay for the first year. This has happened a lot throughout the last 1o years when I became interested and watched the news on fluoridation. It takes a LOT of effort from the community, working hard to force the city council to take it out and they are doing this slowly one by one. In California, the city council can pass fluoridation without public consent, as long as the funding comes from somewhere else. But they do a bait and switch. The tobacco companies initially came up with the money and now they are deferring it to a city fund, which we pay for. Very sneaky. With so many cities proclaiming they are broke, the expense of fluoridation is ridiculous. Our city is broke too. We cannot repair pot holes, fund police and firefighters, or help the homeless here, but we can add a substance that people can do on their own, that has health risks associated with it, and costly dental fixes of dental fluorosis? The logic escapes me. Even if it was the most wonderful substance in the world, which it isn’t, it does not makes sense to fund it in an economy like this. Who really suffers are poor people that don’t have the funds to fix dental fluorosis and will be permanently marred. Btw, if you were allergic to something, like many people are with fluoride. Let say you couldn’t eat peanuts. don;t you think it a travesty to be forceably made to eat them? The three people I know who are very poor due to their fluoride illnesses and disability, have to shell out upwards to $2000 a years for water filtration. The city should pay for this, enforcing people to take and shower with a substance that makes them ill. It is disgusting to force anyone to do anything that is not good for them, especially when there is a choice. One it is in the water, their is no choice. These people cannot go to restaurants because those restaurants use the fluoride water to cook with. The food supply is watered with it. They are sick all the time. They have to wear gloves whenever they are exposed to the tap water. They can;t even go to public swimming pools. They are prisoners of this. This is wrong.

  10. presentandbeing Says:

    Seems that SV doesn’t like to respond to Old Dog’s comments (tells him to go elsewhere???) and also still hasn’t responded to the video I found of Dr. David Kennedy who is retired head of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, wherein this EXPERT says, ‘don’t add fluoride to the water of communities’ nor addressed my points on fluorides effects on the thyroid. Not unbiased, not open to new ideas, just skeptical. Hope that works for you.

    • Gopiballava Says:

      You reference the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. Have you looked in to who they are, and why being a former head of the organization is relevant? As far as I can tell, the IAOMT has 108 accredited members:
      http://iaomt.guiadmin.com/members/

      The American Dental Association has 156,000 members.

      The name “International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology” sounds impressive, but heading an organization of 108 doctors doesn’t make him an expert.

      Appealing to authority can be a logical fallacy, and in this case I believe definitely is.

      • presentandbeing Says:

        So what they have more members? Have any of those dentists done studies that attest to the safety of fluoride and the thyroid? Doubt it. Suggesting that greater numbers means greater credibility is silly. About as silly as saying that the revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA is irrelevant.

        ‘The IAOMT is a network of dental, medical and research professionals who seek to raise the standards of scientific biocompatibility in the dental practice with information from the latest interdisciplinary research’…….’The scientific activities of the IAOMT are overseen by an advisory board composed of world leaders in biochemistry, toxicology and environmental medicine. and those leaders are: Boyd Haley, PhD, FIAOMT, chairman. Professor and former Chairman of the Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky; permanent member, NIH Biomedical Sciences, Study Section.

        Louis W. Chang, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Founding Director of the Taiwan Division of Environmental Health & Occupational Medicine.

        H. Vasken Aposhian, PhD, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Professor of Pharmacology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine.

        Maths Berlin, PhD, Advisor to this Committee. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Medicine, Medical Faculty of Lund, Sweden. Dr. Berlin was the chairman of two World Health Organization conferences on mercury exposure in 1991.

        William Suk, PhD, Earned a PhD in Microbiology from the George Washington University Medical School his MPH in Health Policy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Director of Center for Risk and Integrated Sciences, Superfund Research Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

        Mark Richardson, PhD, Holds a PhD in Biology from the University of Ottawa. More than 25 years of experience in Risk Assessment of Human Exposures to Substances in the Environment and from Medical/Dental Materials. Team Leader for SNC-Lavalin Environment.’

        The ADA are dentists while the IAOMT is mad up of experts in biochemistry, toxicology and environmental medicine. Get serious.

        • Gopiballava Says:

          @presentandbeing:

          I’m happy you finally acknowledge that heading a small organization does not make you an expert.

          I chose one of the names you listed at random to see if I could find more about him:
          http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/12/the-autism-omnibus-when-you-dont-have-sc/

          Dr. Aposhian’s ideas are, shall we say, outside of what is supported by scientific evidence.

          I did not mean to suggest that greater numbers inherently means correctness. Rather, I was disputing the notion that IAOMT was some sort of highly reputed organization and that heading it was a significant honor. That was your implication, and it was unreasonable.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      nor addressed my points on fluorides effects on the thyroid.

      YES I HAVE, right here & here. Please stop ignoring responses and then claiming that people are not addressing your claims. Further, you didn’t provide ANY references for your claims, you just made assertions. If you want to make an argument you are gonna have to provide evidence.

      This issue has been investigated,
      From DPH

      Only three thyroid studies met the inclusion criteria for the “Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation” (McDonagh et al., 2000). No clear evidence of potential adverse effects was found. The subsequent Medical Research Council Report (2002) commissioned as a result of the York Systematic Review on Water Fluoridation by the U.K Department of Health discussed the two studies listed in the York Review in which goitre (hypothyroidism) was the outcome of interest. Two of these studies found no association with water fluoride level (Gedalia et al., 1963, Jooste et al., 1999). The third (Lin et al., 1991) found a significant positive association between combined high fluoride/low iodine levels and goitre. However, because this study looked at combined fluoride/iodine uptakes, and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the findings should be “treated cautiously”. The MRC report concluded that further work on the effect of water fluoridation on thyroid function is of low priority.


      from the ADA

      In an effort to determine if fluoride in drinking water affects the function, shape or size of the thyroid gland, researchers conducted a study comparing one group of people who consumed water containing natural fluoride levels of 3.48 ppm and one group of persons who consumed water with extremely low fluoride levels of 0.09 ppm. The researchers noted that all study participants had been residents of their respective communities for more than 10 years. The researchers concluded that prolonged ingestion of fluoride at levels above optimal to prevent dental decay had no effect on thyroid gland size or function. This conclusion was consistent with earlier animal studies.
      In addition, two studies have explored the association between fluoridated water and cancer of the thyroid gland. Both studies found no association between optimal levels of fluoride in drinking water and thyroid cancer.
      In an effort to link fluoride and decreased thyroid function, those opposed to fluoridation cite one small study from the 1950’s in which 15 patients who had hyperthyroidism (an overactive thyroid) were given relative large amounts of sodium fluoride orally or by injection in an effort to inhibit the thyroid’s function. The researchers concluded that efforts to treat hyperthyroidism with fluoride was successful only occasionally among subjected to massive doses of fluoride. This study does not support claims that low fluoride levels in drinking water would cause hyperthyroidism.
      Leone, N.C., et al: Effect of Fluoride on Thyroid Gland: Clinical Study , J Amer Dent Assoc 2:179 ( (Aug) ) 1964;.
      Fluoridated Drinking Water and the Occurrence of Cancer Robert N. Hoover, M.D.2, Frank W. McKay2 and Joeph F. Fraumeni Jr., M.D.2,3
      Kinlen L. Cancer incidence in relation to fluoride level in water supplies. Br Dent J. 1975 Mar 18;138(6):221–224.
      EFFECT OF FLUORINE ON THYROIDAL IODINE METABOLISM IN HYPERTHYROIDISM PIERRE-M. GALLETTI, M.D., PH.D* AND GUSTAVE JOYET, D.Sc.

  11. skepticalvegan Says:

    Old Dog, since you continue to refuse to recognize that I owe you no original response to a non-original argument, I will simply reply in kind with a pre-manufactured response,

    Section 1: General Comments
    This report offers comments on the listed ‘50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation’ by Dr Connett. The 50 reasons are put forward by Dr Connett as a “thorough review of the scientific literature as regards both the risks and benefits of being exposed to the fluoride ion”. However, the listing is not a review, but a selection of published findings that question or use data to cast doubt on the value and safety of fluoridation. No balance of evidence for- and against- fluoridation is provided, as might be expected in a review.
    The reasons listed are clearly selected to represent fluoride and fluoridation as: non-effective in reducing tooth decay, an imposed medication, a toxic substance, or a source of other toxic substances. A wide variety of adverse human health effects are attributed by Dr Connett to supplementation of drinking water with fluoride. Mostly these reasons contradict the existing consensus of scientific, medical and epidemiological evidence upheld by independent, multidisciplinary scientific reviews. Recent examples of such reviews are the National Health and Medical Research Council Review (NHMRC 1999), the York Report (2000), the World Health Organization Report (WHO 2002) and the Medical Research Council Report (MRC 2002).
    The list of reasons and other material supporting claims made by Drs Connett and Godfrey opposing water fluoridation are contentious. Some stated reasons (e.g. 1, 4, 8, 6 and 50) are statements or comments without scientific content.

    I note that some of the reasons (i.e. 1, 8, 46, 48, 49 and 50) are not actually reasons but personal subjective viewpoints, some of which lack literal or factual substance. Many of the references are from doubtful publications (e.g. 10% are published in the journal Fluoride which specialises in anti-fluoride articles). Also, Dr Connett lists as reasons his submissions to various government and scientific agencies, although no information is provided on the responses from the agencies. I offer two examples of Dr Connett’s and Dr Godfrey’s selective use of information to promote their viewpoint on fluoridation. On one hand, Dr Connett applauds the York Report (2000) for its criticism of fluoride epidemiology over the past 40 years on the grounds of inadequate methodology. On the other hand, he completely ignores the conclusions of the York Report (2000), (also the NHMRC review (1999), the MRC (2002) and WHO (2002) reports) that there is no convincing evidence of adverse human health outcomes from water fluoridation, apart from dental fluorosis. In addition, both Drs Connett and Godfrey claim that the reagents used for fluoridation are impure toxic wastes from the aluminium and fertilizer industries, despite the high level of quality control and monitoring demanded by agencies involved in reagent manufacture and processing of water (Cutress 2004). These claims are made despite the fact that relevant information on water processing and its purity is readily available to the general public.

    The rest of this report and rebuttal of individual points can be found here.
    Beyond this, I am prepared to deal with individual points and arguments if made in good faith. But your continued reliance on pre-manufactured FAN propaganda to make your arguments for you and attempt to Gish Gallop and overwhelm your opponent with piles of biased nonsense is a lazy debate tactic. Deal with the above rebuttal first, then come back if you can have an honest discuss that includes conceding points where evidence is presented.

    Gopi and I have both already addressed the arsenic claim, I even posted links to the actual amounts.
    Another one of the 50 reasons was that fluoride can lower IQ referencing the Chinese studies I have already written about. Non of the studies present are good evidence of a harmful effect from water fluoridation and in fact are used by the Chinese government to support the regulatory levels there.

  12. skepticalvegan Says:

    I’m sorry that the comments get nested so deep that they get hard to read, I’ll be looking into a solution soon. For now you can copy and paste hard to read comments into a note pad or into a new comment at the bottom of the page.

  13. Old Dog Says:

    On fluoride and the brain alone, here are 77 studies with references. I will add that the anti fluoride community has no monetary reason to exclude fluoride from drinking water, however there is a monetary reason to include it. People like us, want to live without fluoride injury. It is the same as Vegans wanting the choice to not eat animal products. It is very simple and should be honored. We are not in a dictatorship society. We should have choices for our health. Vegans of all people, should understand this request for choice. I will post more on the various topics including the arsenic. On the studies included in the link below, that say high fluoride content areas produce IQ problems, in most cases this means above 1ppm. The trouble is, the dose of maintaining 1ppm per day is impossible to gauge on a daily basis.There are many factors. The guidelines are for 1ppm which in my district equals 32 ounces per day of drinking water. Many people drink more than that, I myself have to drink 64 ounces minimum due to a heart issue. There are studies that have shown that we do absorb chemicals in our skin. That, coupled with the level of fluoride in foods and drinks, we get various dosages not to mention the amount of fluoride in medications. All totaled, our daily allowance exceeds and sometimes grossly exceeds what is considered safe. The daily allowance only permits actual drinking water and not all the other variables in our consumption. If you cannot regulate a medication, you should never administer it. Children are at great risk. But I wonder. If you were to find any peer review study that you couldn’t tear apart, even if it was only one, would you change your mind? If i saw two great studies that were completely opposed to each other and I had to decide, I would always take the caution route. Messing with people’s lives and health in the interm is not humanitarian and extremely dangerous. Putting people at risk, is not smart. There are too many doubts, too many studies that create alarm. Also, if our water supply is so tainted with other toxins like you stated in one of your posts, then drinking the water at all should be avoided, in which case, the fluoride is being wasted. DO YOU drink the water? Most people who can afford bottled, do not. Fluoride is a waste of taxpayer’s money. Please look over these studies and find fault with them. I will post more later including replies. http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/osmunson-fda-petition-review-Appendix_M_Brain_Damage.pdf

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      On fluoride and the brain alone, here are 77 studies with references.

      I’ve already dealt with half of those studies and the other half are more of the same, non are evidence of community fluoridation being harmful. Non of the studies were set up to compare optimal levels of fluoride with no fluoride. Only one study appears to come close and it contradicts your claim. It actually compared children getting sub-optimal levels of fluoride with those getting close to optimal and those getting high levels. The children getting optimal levels in the study had the highest IQs.

      #6. Using the Raven’s standard progressive matrices to determine the effects of the level of fluoride in drinking water on the intellectual ability of school-age children.
      Qin L, Huo S, Chen R, Chang Y, Zhao M.

      This is another study on endemic fluoride. This study involved children from 22 villages with varying fluoride levels. An interesting finding of this study was that children with the lowest fluoride intake in the study had lower IQs than children who lived in areas with fluoride levels closer to our national standard in the US. The authors even stated, “it was discovered that both high and low fluoride had an effect on child intelligence. Fluoride levels greater than 2.0 mg/L or less than 0.2 mg/L can disrupt intellectual development.“

      There is really nothing new in that list that I haven’t deal with. Not a single one was on community fluoridation.

      Vegans wanting the choice…

      Ive answered this here.

      I’ll address more of your comment later, but I’ve got some work to do right now.

      • Old Dog Says:

        It appears you are selecting only some studies. If as you say, “none of the studies were set up to compare optimal levels of fluoride with no fluoride”, then the reverse applies also. There are no studies that say that communities have improved with fluoride as well. In fact I have not seen a study comparing community chemical fluoridation and non-fluoridation communities where teeth improved. Recently, I have seen reports that showed that community fluoridation lowered teeth health. Granted it was a report from Men’s Health, which you probably don’t think is valid, but I would like to see the hard evidence that states that it is a miracle and has saved us money rather than cost us, which is what is has been doing in my opinion. The cost from taxpayers and the cost to repair teeth from fluorisis outweighs the so called ‘benefits’. I am still compiling as well to answer other questions. It does take energy and time to do this.

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          It appears you are selecting only some studies

          No, I read through the whole thing, non of the studies appear to support your position.

          If as you say, “none of the studies were set up to compare optimal levels of fluoride with no fluoride”, then the reverse applies also. There are no studies that say that communities have improved with fluoride as well.

          NO, non of the studies IN THAT LIST “were set up to compare optimal levels of fluoride with no fluoride”* for the purpose of examining the effects on IQ, which was the point of that list. There are, however, studies that do compare optimal fluoridation with no fluoridation.

          *with the exception of one study that showed children with the lowest fluoride intake in the study had lower IQs than children who lived in areas with fluoride levels closer to our national standard in the US. Which contradicts your claim that levels of fluoride near the USA’s regulatory level have a damaging effect on IQ. You still just ignore this point.

          In fact I have not seen a study comparing community chemical fluoridation and non-fluoridation communities where teeth improved.

          Then you aren’t bothering to look.

          In Grand Rapids, Michigan, the first city in the world to fluoridate its water supply, a 15-year landmark study showed that children who consumed fluoridated water from birth had 50-63% less dental decay than children who had been examined during the original baseline survey completed in nonfluoridated Muskegon, Michigan.[1]

          Ten years after fluoridation in Newburgh, New York,. 6- to 9-year-olds had 58% less dental decay than their counterparts in nonfluoridated Kingston, New York, which was fluoride-deficient. After 15 years, 13- to 14- year-olds in Newburgh had 70% less decay than the children in Kingston[2]. After 14 years of fluoridation in Evanston, Illinois,. 14-year-olds had 57% fewer decayed, missing or filled teeth than the control group in Oak Park, Illinois, who drank water low in fluoride[3]. In 1983, a study was undertaken in North Wales (Great Britain) to determine if the decay rate of fluoridated Anglesey continued to be lower than that of nonfluoridated Arfon, as had been indicated in a previous survey conducted in 1974. Decay rates of life-long residents in Anglesey aged 5, 12 and 15 were compared with decay rates of similar aged residents in nonfluoridated Arfon. Study results demonstrated that a decline in decay had occurred in both communities since the previous survey in 1974. However, the mean decay rate of the children in fluoridated Anglesey was still 45% lower than that of those living in nonfluoridated Arfon[4] These findings indicated a continuing need for fluoridation although decay levels had declined.[5]

          A controlled study conducted in 1990 demonstrated that average tooth decay experience among school-children who were lifelong residents of communities having low fluoride levels in drinking water was 61-100% higher as compared with tooth decay experience among schoolchildren who were lifelong residents of a community with an optimal level of fluoride in the drinking water.[6] In addition, the findings of this study suggest that community water fluoridation still provides significant public health benefits and that dental sealants can play a significant role in preventing tooth decay.

          Using data from the dental surveys in 1991-2 and 1993-4, a British study predicted that on average, water fluoridation produces a 44% reduction in tooth decay in 5-year-old children. The study further demonstrated that children in lower socioeconomic groups derive an even greater benefit from water fluoridation with an average 54% reduction in tooth decay. Therefore, children with the greatest dental need benefit the most from water fluoridation.[7]…. (It goes on but Im getting tired of the copy & paste)

          [1] Fifteenth year of the Grand Rapids fluoridation study. J. Amer. Dent. Assoc. Dec. 1. 65-781.
          [2] AST DB, FITZGERALD B. Effectiveness of water fluoridation. J Am Dent Assoc. 1962 Nov;65:581–587.
          [3] Blayney JR, Hill IN. Fluorine and dental caries: findings by age group. J Am Dent Assoc 1967 (Spec Iss);74(2):246-52.
          [4] Jackson D, James PM, Thoms FD. Fluoridation in Anglesey 1983: a clinical study of dental caries. Br Dent J 1985;158(2):45-9.
          [5] Jackson D. Has the decline of dental caries in English children made water fluoridation both unnecessary and uneconomic? Br Dent J 1987;162(5):170-3.
          [6] Driscoll WS, Horowitz HS, Meyers RJ, Heifetz SB, Kingman A, Zimmerman ER. Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with negligible, optimal and above-optimal fluoride concentrations in drinking water. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;113:29-33.
          [7] Jones CM, Taylor GO, Whittle JG, Evans D, Trotter DP. Water fluoridation, tooth decay in 5 year olds, and social deprivation measured by the Jarman score: analysis of data from british dental surveys. BMJ 1997;315:514-7.

          Granted it was a report from Men’s Health

          I’m willing to take a look at it if you can link it to me or provide some way for me to find it. The info your provided wasn’t sufficient for a Google search to find it.

          but I would like to see the hard evidence that states that it is a miracle and has saved us money rather than cost us

          I never said it was a miracle, but its a pretty good public health measure, please lay off the hyperbole and strawman arguments. I also already provided info on how fluoridation saves health care costs, and you never responded to it or provided any “hard evidence” yourself. If you want to keep repeating this claim, then you need to back it up. The evidence is right here,

          Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation

          Two published studies conducted by CDC reaffirm the benefits of community water fluoridation. Together, the studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system. In fact, the economic analysis found that for larger communities of more than 20,000 people where it costs about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water, every $1 invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs.

          “An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation”1 presents the results of an economic analysis of water fluoridation under modern conditions of widespread availability of fluorides. Researchers from CDC and Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, found that under typical conditions, the annual per-person cost savings in fluoridated communities ranged from $16 in very small communities (20,000). The analysis takes into account the costs of installing and maintaining necessary equipment and operating water plants, the expected effectiveness of fluoridation, estimates of expected cavities in non-fluoridated communities, treatment of cavities, and time lost visiting the dentist for treatment.

          A related analysis found that children living in non-fluoridated communities in states that are highly fluoridated receive partial benefits of fluoridation from eating foods and drinking beverages processed in fluoridated communities. This second study, “Quantifying the Diffused Benefit from Water Fluoridation”2 reports that 12-year-old children living in states where more than half of the communities have fluoridated water have 26% fewer decayed tooth surfaces per year than 12-year-old children living in states where less than one-quarter of the communities are fluoridated.

          “Widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities even in neighboring communities that are not fluoridated,” according to Dr. Susan Griffin, the study’s main author. “For instance, a 12-year-old child who has lived in a non-fluoridated community in a highly fluoridated state would typically have one fewer cavity than a child in a low-fluoridated state.”
          References

          Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Publ Health Dent 2001;61(2):78–86. View abstract on PubMed.
          Griffin SO, Gooch BF, Lockwood SA, Tomar SL. Quantifying the diffused benefit from water fluoridation in the United States. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:120–129. View abstract on PubMed.

          Related Links

          Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. MMWR, Vol. 50, No. RR14;1-42. (August 17, 2001)
          Water Fluoridation Fact Sheet, 1992

          Date last reviewed: September 1, 2009
          Date last updated: September 1, 2009
          Content source: Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

          The cost from taxpayers and the cost to repair teeth from fluorisis outweighs the so called ‘benefits’.

          You keep repeating this but haven’t provided an data to support it nor address the counter evidence Ive posted. Its like talking to a brick wall with you.

  14. GoodBad Andugly Says:

    “..is their living nightmare, hence all the drugs and deliberate pollution of everything, from our air, water and food to the electromagnetic vibrations surrounding us.”
    yet the myoptic view pt. of ‘science’/SF is presumptous enough..to call “strike 3”.. & does his part to ‘control’ (luciferian)..again; You Are Not Awke..enjoy the Pain Drain..<doin my exercise in Valor..:-)..)

  15. Fluoride & Neurotoxicity in The Lancet | Skeptical Vegan Says:

    […] I’ve written before fluoride is a social justice issue. Endemic fluorosis disproportionately affects the poor in […]

  16. Michael Baker Says:

    have I missed you addressing the Pineal Gland.. “Skeptic” ? http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com/scientific-proof-of-jedi-powers-and-how-to-develop-them/

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      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 scientfic 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.

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


%d bloggers like this: