Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ

A press release has been making the rounds online and is even being picked up in print raising false fears about water fluoridation and brain development. The press release from NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF), a misinformation laden anti-fluoridation organization, cites not a study about water fluoridation relevant to their western audience but rather a systematic review of 27 epidemiological studies relating to endemic fluoride exposure, in China and Iran, and cognitive function. I’ve written about this dishonest propaganda tactic by anti-fluoridation activists before, but activists know that the public has a short memory and the issue continues to periodically be brought up to whip up more fear and more donations for anti-fluoridation organizations. As I thoroughly demonstrated in a previous post, Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies, levels of fluoride to which people are exposed in places such as China and India are much higher than approved fluoride levels used in community fluoridation programs in places such as the US. Injecting such studies on endemic fluoride into the public discussion on water fluoridation without proper context is simply irresponsible and misleading.

In an attempt to rescue their conclusion from anyone noticing this obvious deception, the authors cite a study, Ding 2011, in which it appears that a dose response between relatively low fluoride levels in the urine and low IQ is established. The dose response in this one study however is contradicted by other research that found 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. It also should be noted that in the Ding 2011 study other water contaminates and iodine intake do not appear to be taken into account, these important variables have been show to have an large impact in other studies and could easily account for inaccuracy in this study. With water fluoridation programs in the US averaging around 1 mg/L fluoride (or less), the claim in the study that an “increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride [was] associated with [a] 0.59-point decrease in IQ” is just not significant. Perhaps most important, the claim that fluoride negativity impacts cognitive function is simply not supported by any studies on water fluoridation programs in developed nations.

So once again, while the focus of anti-fluoridation activists is on stopping community fluoridation programs in places such as the US, not a single study presented was actually about community fluoridation in developed nations. Rather, the studies presented in the press release are about the threat of endemic fluorosis among those exposed to high levels naturally occurring in the groundwater in developing nations, an issue on which they are not active. This is a disingenuous use of scientific research to advance a fear-based agenda. I urge my readers to join me in supporting real, meaningful efforts to protect communities from the harms of endemic fluorosis. If you enjoyed this post please donate what you can to Frank Water and their efforts to provide sustainable water filtration to some of the worlds poorest communities, including those hit hardest by endemic fluoride.

Further Reading:
Fluoride & Heart Disease?
Fluoride & Brain Damage
Fluoride & the Brain: Déjà Vu
Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!
Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies
Fluoride & Cancer Quackery
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Full Text & Supplemental Material)
Anatomy of a propaganda press release: Fluoride and IQ by idoubtit
Fluoride Lowers Your IQ: B.S. Headline of the Week by David Wong
Anti-Fluoride Propaganda as News by Steven Novella

Advertisements

Tags:

89 Responses to “Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ”

  1. Housewife Says:

    All one has to do it get a fluoride tester. Then test your food, drinks, any medications you take, your average amount of digested water, and the residue amount of fluoride toothpaste that gets swallowed even if it was spat out. Then add up those figures. You will find it far exceeds safe limits. Until you do that, your point is mute. Also be aware that everyone gets different dosages depending on what they intake. That is a tricky medicine to regulate and because of that, the only way to get an accurate reading is to actually test your own intake. There are websites that show the fluoride level of some foods and drinks, but it is up to you to see your own usage. On average though, we far exceed the limits. Also, we are receiving more and more foods from China. Even Whole Foods makes their food there, So that also puts a wrinkle in the amount. Also there is no regulated study that shows how much we absorb in a shower. Fluoride can pass the blood brain barrier it is so tiny, which means it can also be easily absorbed.

    • gopiballava Says:

      What did you calculate your own intake to be? What model of fluoride tester do you use?

      • Housewife Says:

        Gopiballava, the fluoride tester is my friend’s unit and had no brand label on it for me to remember what it was called. He told me it cost around $200, but there are different models. I will find out and get back to you about the model. It is not easy to find he said. You have to handle arsenic, so it is very tricky. My intake was 9ppm, but when I got rid of one of my meds, it reduced to 6ppm. I am now in the process of eliminating high fluoride foods and drinks to get the amount down because fluoride makes me sick.I am allergic to it and get rashes, body aches and cognitive problems. I live in an apartment, so I cannot avoid showering in it because there is no decent filter out there. I think fluoride is good if used topically and in small amounts. I am not completely opposed to fluoride toothpaste. I just get sick is all if it goes in my body over a certain amount.

        • gopiballava Says:

          When you say your intake was 9ppm, what do you mean? Shouldn’t you be calculating your total intake or your intake per kg of body weight?

          How did you do the calculations that came up with 9ppm?

          • Housewife Says:

            Ppm is parts per million which is the standard on how fluoride is administered. That was just for one day. I borrowed the machine and ‘thought’ I was going to get a good reading, because I do not even drink fluoride water. I was sadly mistaken. I have since looked up fluoride testers. There are a lot of inexpensive handheld ones for pretty cheap. I have no idea how well they work. Here, we are given .07 ppm fluoride in 32 ounces of water. I think they assume we only drink that much. I however have to drink 80ml. Not sure how much the cumulative amount not flushed out of our body is. I was told the only way to know is to do a bone scan to find out what the effect is on the bones. If it causes fluorosis in the teeth, it is causing problems in the rest of the bones as well. Teeth are bones and there is a bad fluorosis epidemic.

          • Housewife Says:

            Your best bet is to get a tester for yourself. There are many kinds out there. I just learned today that some will measure it in your urine. They vary in prices and some are cheap if you are measuring just liquids.

            I can tell you what my personal experience is, but it means nothing as I stated in this post, because we ingest fluoride from many different sources. So my reading will be different than yours. PPM means parts per million and is the gauge for federal standard. My friend is gone for a month, so I can’t find out his model. But with enough patience, I am sure you can find a unit with a decent accurate rating. The handheld cheap ones sound easy and some people are happy with them. I want my own unit and will start the long process of researching which one will work for me. Here is a list of some already done foods, but I would not trust it since we get a lot of foods from China now. Best to test it yourself. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf

            • gopiballava Says:

              You previously said something about adding up the ppm readings you got. That doesn’t sound correct. If I drink two liters of water with 2 ppm fluoride and 1 liter of beer with 5 ppm fluoride per day, what would you calculate my intake to be?

            • Housewife Says:

              A lot more because you are not figuring in food and any medications you are taking nor toothpaste. Here is some fluoride conversion help. Some testers are easy to understand and you don’t need to convert all this. You are better off asking an expert what the best tester is for you and getting trained to do it yourself. Asking me when I had help from a friend to do this, is not going to be the best way, lol. I barely remember what he did but it didn’t seem hard. He is actually a dentist and asked science professors here to get the right unit ‘for him’. It seems more complicated than the handhelds though. When he comes back, maybe he can post here for you. http://www.uic.edu/classes/peri/peri343/carlec5f/flur4.htm

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              After hearing you description of the tester I have to say that I’m extremely skeptical that you have been using it correctly or have been getting accurate readings. Fluoride testers are available for fluids but testing fluoride content in solid food is a more complex matter(can you describe how testing of solid matter is performed). If you have a device that gives a reading from merely being in psychical contact with the food then you are being scammed, you cant get any kinda of accurate measurement in solid food in that manner. If I’m gonna take any talk about this tester seriously then I need some very specific info about it, starting with a brand name a and model, so that I can contact the company and find out what its limits of use are. You need to understand that many amateur use scientific looking devices to fool the public or fool themselves, just because you have a fancy gadget doesn’t mean you are doing science or that it is meaningful. For example “ghost hunters” often employ a variety of meters and devices that gives the appearance that something is happening, but in reality they just don’t know the limits of those devices. This even crops up in poorly perform scientific studies, such as one in which the authors used a chemical detection system designed only for plant tissue to test human tissue and got false results. It important to know the limits of your detection system, I need that info before we can go on anymore about measurements.

              In the end this point is moot. Your personal (very suspect) measurements neither demonstrate harm from fluoride or call the scientific consensus into question. Water fluoridation remains a widely supported, cost-effective public health measure. All this talk does nothing to refute the actual science supporting it.

            • Housewife Says:

              Wow, that was a very nice avoidance for testing your own usage. I guess you will never know then. I am sure you can research good units, but you refuse to. Until you have tested your own unique usage, unfortunately you have lost the argument.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              How can I test my own usage if you STILL cant name the tester used.

              Until you have tested your own unique usage, unfortunately you have lost the argument.

              No, because my argument doesn’t hinge on my own intake, its hinged on decades of clinical and epidemiological research that has show fluoridation to be safe and effective. Simply having my own exact dosage only tells me my dosage and would not be relevant to the issue of whether fluoridation is safe and effective. You talking about two different questions. Declaring that someone has lost the argument is just immature.

            • Housewife Says:

              Not testing your own usage and finding out for yourself is irresponsible. If you would like to rely on data, why don’t rely on the EPA findings link that I posted? Do you dismiss the EPA? There is a lot of information from both camps, lots of studies. Many of which is funded suspiciously. You seems to only listen to some studies and not others. The ONLY way to get an accurate assessment of the real truth is to do it yourself. Your lack of not wanting to test this is a ‘see no evil’ approach, which never creates truth. You could do this, but you don’t want to. Lots of things we have done in the past were proven to be no good for us, like smoking. But to turn a blind eye and not being your own advocate is senseless. The government just admitted the dosage had been wrong recently, and yet you blindly accept what they say to be true. How long did it take them to put warnings on cigarettes after they knew of it’s harms? It isn’t like government gets lobbied by corporations, right, lol? Much of Europe banned it due to their science. I suppose their scientists don’t know anything too. Also, I posted a link to fluoride in common foods by the USDA, so you don’t even have to test some of it yourself, but you still don’t want to make your own calculations?.That is a shame.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              If you would like to rely on data, why don’t rely on the EPA findings link that I posted? Do you dismiss the EPA?

              The link you posted was NOT the FDA, rather it was a union, National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050, representing employees in Washington. The majority of the membership are not scientists and have no expertise in fluoride issues, further the National Federation of Federal Employees is not a scientific body that performs research. This is little different than the global warming deniers who present “lists of professionals” who oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming that are composed mostly of lawyers and meteorologists (non-experts on climate). Its an attempt to make it look like you have some scientific authority on your side, but its just a smokescreen at best, its a poor tactic.

              Funny how it is you who dismisses the actual FDA’s statements and the CDC’s statements on the safety of fluoridation. Trying to pretend that a workers union represents the scientific consensus while ignorign actual scientific bodies is either deluded or dishonest.

            • gopiballava Says:

              I gave the simple two substance example because I wasn’t sure you were doing the math correctly. Can you try doing the math for that one?

              “Here, we are given .07 ppm fluoride in 32 ounces of water.”

              That makes no sense. It’s like saying I drive 65 miles per hour an hour. Parts per million is independent of volume. 1 ppm means if you consume a million gallons of water you’ll get a gallon of fluoride, or 1 million atoms will give you 1 fluoride atom.

              If you consume 32 fl oz of water with a 0.07 ppm concentration of fluoride, you will consume about 2 mg of fluoride.

              “I think they assume we only drink that much. I however have to drink 80ml”

              80 ml of water is 2.7 fluid ounces. The way you wrote that seemed to imply that you believed you consumed more than 32 oz of water. Can you clarify?

            • Housewife Says:

              I meant 80 oz, not ml, sorry. Though I have told you quite a few times I had help with my calculations by professionals and have recommended that you see for yourself on this, you still want to argue over this issue. It appears at this point harassment, and avoiding finding out for yourself. Until you do your own calculations, you won’t get closer to the truth. My dentist friend and his professor colleagues, who incidentally give free testing at the colleges, helped me test all usage and my water portion was spot on to what we get here. I am therefore confident in their approach. Organic grocery stores do free testing too sometimes. Call and find out. I advise you to not ask a science dummy housewife like myself for answers, but ask a professional and do your own testing. That is what I posted to do initially. Why you would rather argue, than do this yourself (since we have different dosages and results) remains a mystery. There are easier testers than the one I saw, that will do all the calculating for you. Don’t forget that the government had to lower our dose because they too admitted, we get fluoride from other sources. With that, it is up to the individual to find out what ‘their’ dose is.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Though I have told you quite a few times I had help with my calculations by professionals and have recommended that you see for yourself on this, you still want to argue over this issue.

              I simply want enough information to check out what you are saying, otherwise you can make any assertion you want. I simply want more info about this fluoride tester and how its able to test both fluids and solids.

              It appears at this point harassment, and avoiding finding out for yourself.

              Seriously, your accusing me of harassment…for what, replying to MULTIPLE COMMENTS YOU LEFT ON MY BLOG. How can I find out for myself if you cant even give me the name of the tester??

              Until you do your own calculations

              You don’t even understand the calculations. You don’t seem to understand that PPM is a measure of concentration and is independent of volume.

              Don’t forget that the government had to lower our dose because they too admitted, we get fluoride from other sources.

              Imagine that, updating our recommendations based on new evidence…oh wait THAT’S HOW SCIENCE WORKS. Its a self-correcting enterprise.

            • Housewife Says:

              I guess Gobi and Skeptical are the same person. I told you I don’t know the name but can find out in a month. I told you to research the one that works for you, which is what any responsible person should do. I told you to do your own research and to not rely on some housewife. I told you they were my findings but the point is to be your own advocate and not rely on the government who has admitted they were wrong. I told you what the EPA says with no response, I have asked you questions you didn’t answer as to why you are opposed to people having the option to fluoridate on their own, and you have yet to reply. You insulted me by saying that I do not suffer from fluoride allergies even though the CDC acknowledges people do. I use to be a vibrant working person until fluoridation. I was tested for this and you have a lot of nerve saying this when I suffer every single frickin’ day and my quality of life went down. This reminds me of people who think gays were not born gay, so they pass legislation against them. I know how it affects me, I know what the allergist said, and I want people to CHOOSE their own medication. Making people conform to practices that hurt other people, is wrong. I don’t care what a person does as long as they don’t hurt other people. Your views hurt a great many people. I believe in letting people choose their lives, make decisions for themselves, do whatever they want…as long as they do not impose their beliefs on to other people. Too much if that is happening in government. It is wrong to create fluorosis, and health issues just to save a few cavities. The tiny ‘benefits’ do not outweigh the cost and damage financially to communities and the public at large.

            • gopiballava Says:

              “I guess Gobi and Skeptical are the same person.”

              I have met Skeptical twice. I am not the same person. I agree with him on some things, but definitely not everything.

              “I told you to do your own research and to not rely on some housewife.”

              He has done his research. I have done mine. My research contradicts what you have posted here. I am asking you questions because I’d like to understand why you disagree.

              I am not going to rely on you. I am asking you to show me the evidence that has convinced you.

            • Housewife Says:

              If you have a tester and have tested your food, meds, drinks and water, what was your outcome?

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              You insulted me by saying that I do not suffer from fluoride allergies even though the CDC acknowledges people do.

              No they don’t, just as they don’t support the existence of a wifi allergy.

              I told you what the EPA says with no response,

              again, the WASNT the FDA, it was a union of mostly non-scientists. Yet you ignore the actual FDAs statements on fluoride.

            • Housewife Says:

              You are incorrect. They admit that there are studies that show not only allergies but other disorders in rats and rabbits, but that there is no study to be found in humans. There is of course…studies, but whether the CDC finds it valid or not, is another matter. If the head scientist for the EPA says it is a toxin that is detrimental to the safety of humans, I believe it. Sorry you don’t. A lot of studies have occurred since the CDC report of 2003 as well.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              You are incorrect. They admit that there are studies that show not only allergies but other disorders in rats and rabbits, but that there is no study to be found in humans

              Ok so lets look at it again a bit closer. First the section is titled “Immunological and Lymphoreticular Effects”, you need to note that this section is not just about allergy but about general immunological effects.
              On to the main text….

              A request to the American Academy of Allergy was made by the U.S. Public Health Service for an evaluation of suspected allergic reactions to fluoride as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies (Austen et al. 1971). The response to this request included a review of clinical reports and an opinion as to whether these reports constituted valid evidence of a hypersensitivity reaction to fluoride exposure of types I, II, III, or IV (Austen et al. 1971), which are, respectively, anaphylactic or reaginic, cytotoxic, toxic complex, and delayed-type reactivity.

              A more complete quote from Austen et al. 1971 may be even more illuminating,

              The review of the reported allergic reactions showed no evidence that immunologically mediated reaction of the types I-IV had been presented. Secondly, the review of the cases reported demonstrated that there was insufficient clinical and laboratory evidence to state that true syndromes of fluoride allergy or intolerance exist.

              As a result of this review, the members of the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy adopted unanimously the following statement:

              “There is no
              evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.”

              moving on…

              The Academy reviewed the wide variety of symptoms presented (vomiting, abdominal pain, headaches, scotomata [blind, or partially blind areas in the visual field], personality change, muscular weakness, painful numbness in extremities, joint pain, migraine headaches, dryness in the mouth, oral ulcers, convulsions, mental deterioration, colitis, pelvic hemorrhages, urticaria, nasal congestion, skin rashes, epigastric distress, and hematemesis) and concluded that none of these symptoms were likely to be immunologically mediated reactions of types I–IV. No studies were located that investigated alterations in immune response following fluoride exposure in humans.

              This is just more lack of evidence.

              In a study with rabbits administered 4.5 mg fluoride/kg/day as sodium fluoride for 18 months, decreased antibody titers were observed (Jain and Susheela 1987). These results were observed after 6 months of treatment; the authors hypothesized that a threshold level is reached at which time the immune system is impaired. However, as only one dose level (4.5 mg fluoride/kg/day) was tested, no dose-effect relationships can be established. An increase in the cellularity of Peyer’s patches and mesenteric lymph nodes was observed in rats administered sodium fluoride (Butler et al. 1990).

              As noted at the beginning, this section deals with immunological effects in general, not just allergy. The rabbit study described did NOT demonstrate allergic reaction, rather it shows a possible impairment in immune function, these are two different things. Further the rabbit study used dosage far far higher that ever recommended for humans, 4.5 mg fluoride/kg/day, please note that is per kg. For a 180 pound (82 kg) human this 369 mg a day, far above the UL of 10mg. This study is simply not relevant to the question of water fluoridation and allergic reaction.
              The rat study demonstrated a possible adjuvant effect from fluoride to the response to ovalbumin (egg protein), this may be relevant to improved oral immunization (as has been studies in chickens) but is in no way indicative of fluoride itself being allergenic or even harmful. An adjuvant is not an allergen, an adjuvant is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact we put adjuvants in vaccine because they improve the response.

              So once again, that document does not demonstrate that fluoride allergy is real or medically recognized.

              There is of course…studies, but whether the CDC finds it valid or not, is another matter.

              So where are they…

              If the head scientist for the EPA says it is a toxin that is detrimental to the safety of humans, I believe it.

              Which “head scientist”? Why would you put more weight into the statement of one scientist rather than the EPA itself, the CDC, or the WHO? If a head scientist from the EPA really said it (which I don’t doubt, plenty of cranks and quacks make it to high levels) and its true then why would the EPA not oppose the practice. You keep wanting to make it look like the EPA itself in anti-fluoride, but its dishonest to pretend that one former scientist speaks for them or that a union is “the EPA”.

              A lot of studies have occurred since the CDC report of 2003 as well.

              Bring ’em on….

            • gopiballava Says:

              I think you’ve misunderstood. I am asking you questions because what you’ve said contradicts what I have read from scientists on this topic.

              You said your personal fluoride consumption was 9ppm. That is a meaningless statement without an important piece of information you didn’t list: the total quantity of stuff (food, liquids, etc) you actually consumed.

              What matters when calculating individual consumption is mg or, really, mg/kg. If the people you were working with didn’t give you your total consumption in either of those units then they are simply ignorant.

              Here’s one way to think about it: let’s say there is a really tasty beer that has a huge 50ppm of fluoride in it. If I drink a shot glass of it once a week, I will not actually consume much fluoride. My friend who drinks a pint with dinner every night is going to get lots of fluoride.

              When public health people talk about ppm limits, they base these upon how much of the product they expect people to consume. What matters is how many milligrams of fluoride per kilo of body weight you consume (and absorb – solid food fluoride absorbed as readily). (The importance of how much is absorbed is actually huge – you can probably drink pure mercury without harm, but if you heat and inhale it a tiny amount will harm you)

              So, bottom line, if the only thing your friend told you was 9ppm, you don’t know if your fluoride consumption is too high or not.

            • Housewife Says:

              By your own statement, the fact that there are variables in weight and such, proves my point that it is irresponsible to give a mass dosage of medicine to a varying population with varying consumption.

            • gopiballava Says:

              “By your own statement, the fact that there are variables in weight and such”

              You are aware that my statement is basic scientific fact that is agreed with by every competent scientist, including those who fully support municipal fluoridation?

              Municipal fluoridation levels are designed so that people consuming the maximum amount won’t get too much fluoride.

              I’m rather surprised you act like this is some kind of admission…

            • Housewife Says:

              This is incorrect. It does not account for children and babies, which is why they are suffering from fluorosis. Teeth are a window to bone health. I shudder to think what is happening to their tiny bones. The max dosage is 4mg daily for an adult. We exceed that daily with foods, other drinks and meds.

            • gopiballava Says:

              “The max dosage is 4mg daily for an adult. We exceed that daily with foods, other drinks and meds.”

              What percentage of the populace do you believe exceeds that? What is your daily dosage?

            • Housewife Says:

              This just keeps going around in circles. I don’t know who I am speaking with because Skeptical replied to a thread you and I are having in regards to specific info we were sharing. Unless I test everyone’s usage, I cannot know since it varies significantly from every individual. You said you have done your own calculations and you seem pleased with your overall usage which is why you are posting here. I am glad you meet the so called ‘safe’ dosage administered by the government. It is not safe for ‘me’ at any dose. I was tested and am allergic to fluoride. I have a results paper confirming this. But if you are fine, don’t exceed the amount, and don’t have physical problems, then I suppose you are fine with it. But please note, everyone will get a different value depending on what they consume, and for that, this med cannot be regulated. This is why I go back to my original post that everyone should check their own dose. I only had the machine for a day. I want to do this on a daily basis for a month. That is a responsible thing to do.

            • gopiballava Says:

              “This just keeps going around in circles.”

              I’ve asked a simple question you haven’t answered: how many mg/day of fluoride do you consume?

              “I was tested and am allergic to fluoride. I have a results paper confirming this.”

              Can you tell me what test was performed? I’d like to understand more about why you believe you are allergic.

            • Housewife Says:

              Okay, I emailed my friend on vacation and he said it is NOT 9ppm, but 9mg per day. He was not helpful on the name of the tester. He didn’t answer that. I will email again and hope to find out. I do not know the test that was performed for my fluoride testing. It was through my primary. I told her I was getting severe rashes in the shower, overall pain in the joints, mental fog, lack of energy, etc, and found a website that showed my symptoms correlating to fluoride overdose. I asked my very reluctant Dr. to test me for fluoride. She didn’t believe it was fluoride but sent me to a rheumatologist, where I had a panel of various allergies including fluoride. I had to fight for the fluoride test. I also had a vitamin deficiency test done. Everything turned out normal except for fluoride allergy. The results paper states “allergic reaction: fluoride”. I gave blood and urine as well as a scratch test. It does not say how it was tested for fluoride. Since then, which was 2 years ago, I stopped all fluoride water and took only one shower a week. Within 4 months I got 40% better. On days I feel the worse, I can track it to high fluoride use. I asked you what your calculations came to as you said you did your own. I haven’t heard back. What amount did you come up with of your entire intake?

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              This is odd because fluoride allergies have ever been accepted by the mainstream medical community and there should be no commercial test available as its not recognized. Its possible that you were given a false test. Allergy and food intolerance testing scams are actually not uncommon and unscrupulous alternative practitioners and even MDs have been know to administer bunk allergy tests. Can you provide more information from your doctor (not the internet) about fluoride allergy specifically and the name of the test they are using.

            • Housewife Says:

              I am not going to take the time to make an appointment to see my specialist Dr. which by the way I have to make an appointment to get clearance from my primary, just to give irrelevant information to you. I have the diagnosis…that is all I need. Especially when you can’t even get a tester and test your usage. Ridiculous.

              You are wrong about the CDC. Page 31, item 1.8 in the CDC manual for fluorides states: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf “Urine and blood samples can be analyzed to find outif you have been exposed to fluorides. The
              fluoride level in the sample is compared with the level of fluoride usually found in urine or
              blood. This will show if a person has been exposed recently to higher-than-normal levels of
              fluorides. However, this test cannot be used to predict any specific health effects that may occur
              after fluoride exposure. The test must be performed soon after exposure because fluoride that is
              not stored in the bones leaves the body within a few days. This test can be done at most
              laboratories that test for chemical exposure. Bone sampling can be done in special cases to
              measure long-term exposure to fluorides. Because fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine all
              enter the body as fluoride, these tests cannot distinguish among exposure to these different
              chemicals. ” Now hopefully this can settle your personal attack on my well being. I am sorry you don’t believe the EPA who is considered part of the mainstream community, or anything else I have said, but my initial statement cannot be refuted. Personal testing usage is the only way to come to any truth on this matter. Don’t take my word for it, DO IT.

            • gopiballava Says:

              “Personal testing usage is the only way to come to any truth on this matter”

              That is simply not true. How will knowing my fluoride consumption tell me what level of fluoride consumption is safe? How will it tell me whether the level added to municipal water supplies is causing widespread problems for lots of people and should be opposed?

              Your own fluoride tests revealed that your personal fluoride consumption was normal. Your problems were *not* caused by excessive fluoride consumption. Your allergy test was what indicated your problem.

              Why do you keep insisting that we should all perform a test that didn’t even help you?

            • Housewife Says:

              Read my other comments on this. It helped me to lower my dosage a bit, but you are right, I cannot get it out of everything I eat. But it will convince you, like it did me, that we are overfluoridated and you may be able to reduce your levels by researching the foods and drinks to minimize it. Cutting tea and beer, helped a lot.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Especially when you can’t even get a tester and test your usage. Ridiculous.

              But the question has never been “How much am I consuming” the question at hand, “is fluoridation safe”. Having my own intake measurement tells us NOTHING about whether fluoridation as a whole is safer even whether my dosage is safe.
              Lets say my intake is 3mg a day…what does that tell us…nothing, it doesn’t even tell us if 3mg a day is safe or not nor does it tell us anything about community wide fluoridation. You keep deflecting to a meaningless question to avoid the central one.

              I have the diagnosis

              and I doubt your diagnosis as much as I would if you said you were allergic to wifi or had morgellons. You can find a quack to make either diagnosis, its doesn’t mean either condition is real at all. The fact that you are talking about being diagnosed with a non-medically recognized condition is a huge red flag here.

              You are wrong about the CDC.

              Wrong about what, I dont see any statement made about the CDC in the preceding comment nor do i see what point you are trying to make with the quote from the CDC. Are you trying to imply that the CDC opposes fluoridation? Can you quote the claim you were responding to with this bit about the CDC.

              I am sorry you don’t believe the EPA who is considered part of the mainstream community

              The FDA does not oppose fluoirdation. The link you posted was NOT the FDA, rather it was a union, National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050, representing employees in Washington. The majority of the membership are not scientists and have no expertise in fluoride issues, further the National Federation of Federal Employees is not a scientific body that performs research. This is little different than the global warming deniers who present “lists of professionals” who oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming that are composed mostly of lawyers and meteorologists (non-experts on climate). Its an attempt to make it look like you have some scientific authority on your side, but its just a smokescreen at best, its a poor tactic.

              Funny how it is you who dismisses the actual FDA’s statements and the CDC’s statements on the safety of fluoridation. Trying to pretend that a workers union represents the scientific consensus while ignoring actual scientific bodies is either deluded or dishonest.

              Personal testing usage is the only way to come to any truth on this matter.

              Once again, all that give us is a number, it says nothing about that number being safe or not. Your jumping over the central issue to a secondary one.

            • Housewife Says:

              “But the question has never been “How much am I consuming” the question at hand, “is fluoridation safe”. ”

              I am confused. I thought you knew that 4mg per day is the maximum contaminant level for ‘safe’ usage. If we are receiving more than that, than.. we are at risk of health problems including skeletal fluorosis as ALL scientific community states,. Fluoride doesn’t entirely flush out of the system, it is a cumulative toxin, so therefore if we are going by the guidelines, we should be staying at 4mg and no more. The fact that it is showing up in children’s teeth is a sign that they are getting too much. But even if we go by the mere guidelines, my amount is too much. Too much even if I wasn’t allergic. So no, fluoridation isn’t safe for everyone, if it is over a certain amount. So the question is…what is our individual amount.

              “and I doubt your diagnosis as much as I would if you said you were allergic to wifi or had morgellons. You can find a quack to make either diagnosis, its doesn’t mean either condition is real at all. The fact that you are talking about being diagnosed with a non-medically recognized condition is a huge red flag here.”

              What a rude and ignorant thing to say. So apparently you think Kaiser and it’s Drs. are quacks? If people can be allergic to anything, they sure and hell can be allergic to fluoride.

              “Are you trying to imply that the CDC opposes fluoridation? ” No I do not, but you said there is no way to test for it and I proved there was because the CDC said so. They are also against consumption for children. You continually make statements you haven’t researched. They admit that fluoride can cause toxic harm in certain amounts.

              “Your jumping over the central issue to a secondary one.” No, I originally posted this and I stand by this as being the major issue which is there is no way to regulate the correct dosage because of varying consumption. Testing is the only way to see for yourself. Science cannot test for the millions of variables for ALL fluoride consumption. Medications and food vary from person to person, region to region and so forth.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              I am confused.

              You are. Having my own dosage intake measurement only tells us if I’m over or below the current upper limit which is 10 mg a day. It doesn’t tell us however is that limit of 10 mg per day is safe, that is the more central and basic question that is of more interest.

              I thought you knew that 4mg per day is the maximum contaminant level for ‘safe’ usage.

              Once again you are getting things confused. The EPA standard is NOT 4mg per day it is 4mg per liter. This is an important point you seems to just not get. The EPA standard is given as a concentration not an absolute amount. The absolute amount upper limit is 10 mg a day. You keep confusing concentration and absolute amount. This is partly why its hard to take some of your arguments seriously when you don’t seem to understand some of the basic of the issue.

              my amount is too much.

              No, your stated levels of 9mg a day are below the upper limit for absolute amount, additionally your drinking water from the numbers stated earlier is far below the EPA concentration limit.

              So apparently you think Kaiser and it’s Drs. are quacks?

              I actually have Kaiser insurance as does my girlfriend and we have both been saddened and dismayed at the amount of pseudoscience and quackery there. It’s not as bad as a straight up new age clinic but numerous times either myself or girlfriend have been recommended treatments known to be quackery like homeopathy.
              Are you saying that you got your diagnosis of fluoride allergy through Kaiser? Because I would love to go talk to my doctor about it. And yes even an MD can be a quack, there are MD who deny HIV causes AIDS…doesn’t get much more quacky than that.

              If people can be allergic to anything

              But they cant be allergic to anything, they can be allergic to many things but something have never been demonstrated to be an allergen and have no biological mechanism to induce an allergic reaction.
              Do you believe people are allergic to wifi signals? Is every reported allergy real?

              No I do not, but you said there is no way to test for it and I proved there was because the CDC said so.

              The quote you gave WAS NOT an allergen test. I specifically said there was no commercial allergen test for fluoride, the fact that fluoride can be detected in body fluids and tissue doesnt change that.

              They are also against consumption for children.

              No, they recommend limiting, not eliminating consumption for children and that brushing should be monitored.

              For parents: Children younger than 6 years have a poor swallowing reflex and tend to swallow much of the toothpaste on their brush. Toothpaste that is swallowed (but not toothpaste that is spit out) contributes to a child’s total fluoride intake. Therefore:
              As soon as the first tooth appears, begin cleaning by brushing without toothpaste with a small, soft-bristled toothbrush and plain water after each feeding. Begin using toothpaste with fluoride when the child is 2 years old. Use toothpaste with fluoride earlier if your child’s doctor or dentist recommends it.

              Do not brush your child’s teeth more than 2 times a day with a fluoride toothpaste,
              Apply no more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste to the toothbrush, and
              Supervise your child’s tooth brushing, encouraging the child to spit out toothpaste rather than swallow it. Additional information is available on-line: http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/factsheets/brushup.htm
              If your child’s pediatrician or dentist prescribes a fluoride supplement (or vitamin supplement that contains fluoride), ask him or her about any risk factors your child has for decay and the potential for dental fluorosis. If you live in an area with fluoridated water, fluoride supplements are not recommended.
              You can use fluoridated water for preparing infant formula. However, if your baby is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there is an increased potential for mild dental fluorosis. Additional information can be found in a CDC fact sheet on infant formula: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm

              Imagine that, science-based advice from the CDC.

              You continually make statements you haven’t researched.

              No, that would be you. You have repeatedly shown that you dont really understand the measurements systems involved or the scope of the regulatory agencies involved.

              They admit that fluoride can cause toxic harm in certain amounts.

              Sure, I’ll say it myself, fluoride can cause toxic harm in certain amounts. But a dangerous concentration far exceeds city fluoridation concentrations.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              If you bother to actually read that document you will see that they simply say that they looked into the issue and found no evidence and “concluded that none of these symptoms were likely to be immunologically mediated reactions”

              also

              In 1971, the American Academy of Allergy examined the literature on alleged allergic reactions to fluoride: (Feltman, 1956; Feltman & Kosel, 1961; Burgstahler, 1965; Waldbott, 1965; Shea et al., 1967). The conclusions of the Executive Committee were (Austen et al., 1971): “The review of the reported allergic reactions showed no evidence that immunologically mediated reaction of the types I-IV had been presented. Secondly, the review of the cases reported demonstrated that there was insufficient clinical and laboratory evidence to state that true syndromes of fluoride allergy or intolerance exists.” As a result of this review, the members of the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy adopted unanimously the following statement: “There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.”
              Since 1971, only in a few reports in the allergy literature have allergic reactions been suspected to be connected with fluoride exposure. Petraborg (1974) described seven patients with various symptoms appearing a week after the introduction of water fluoridation. Grimbergen (1974) using a double blind provocation test reported on a patient showing allergic reactions to fluoridated water. Waldbott (1978) reviewed previous reports.
              However, no animal or laboratory studies have indicated the existence of fluoride allergy or fluoride intolerance, and no plausible mechanism for such allergic reactions has been suggested. Thus, the allergenic effects of fluoride remain unproven.

              IT IS NOT A CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED MEDICAL CONDITION PERIOD

            • Housewife Says:

              You posted something from 1971. I guess no one has an allergy to fluoride. It is a pure beautiful substance, benign as water. Not even rats are allergic. They just die from it. It is rat poison you know…

              Stating that no one is allergic to fluoride is the most ridiculous thing I have ever witnessed you state. People are allergic to all kinds of food, pets, pollen, chemicals and substances. To say that they aren’t, is crazy talk.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              You posted something from 1971.

              actually is was from 1984 from a report from the WHO

              I guess no one has an allergy to fluoride.

              Well its never been clinically established and is not currently recognized by the American Academy of Allergy or any other reputable medical organization.

              It is a pure beautiful substance, benign as water

              Now you are just constructing a strawman. I never said that…but it is true that water kills far more people than fluoride every year. BAN DHMO! /sarcasm

              Not even rats are allergic. They just die from it.

              Correct, rats will die at sufficiently high dosages from a toxic reaction rather than allergic reaction.

              They just die from it. It is rat poison you know…

              Do the anti-fluoride people never get tired of this cliche. It show a extremely shallow knowledge of medicine and dose response.
              Warfarin, a potentially life saving medication, is also “rat poison”. The poison is in the dose, take to much of just about anything and it can kill you…even pure water.
              Don’t forget that salt is “slug poison”. Even some dogs cant have chocolate because its toxic to them. By repeating such cliches as the one above you only show yourself to be ignorant of species variation in biological effects and variation in dose response.

              People are allergic to all kinds of food, pets, pollen, chemicals and substances. To say that they aren’t, is crazy talk.

              I never denied any of those other allergen source but you need to understand that the reasons scientists don’t believe there is such a thing as fluoride allergy exists is not just because of a lack of evidence but also a lack of plausibility, no actual biological mechanism for inducing an allergic reaction has even been found. Many things are allergen, but not everything is, some things however lack a biological mechanism for inducing an allergic reaction.

              In addition to thing that actually are allergenic there are also people who just THINK they are allergic to a particular something such as wifi signals. Do you think that ever allergy that anyone asserts is automatically real? Do you not accept that some cases can be psychogenic or simply be false correlation, that some folks are mistaken? This is an important point as there are many things people think they are “allergic” to when they aren’t, allergy fads are not uncommon. There are far more people walking around today saying they have a wheat allergy than actually have one for example, partly because grain-free &/or gluten-free diets are in vouge.

              So lets see what the The American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) has to say. When ask if there is “any credible scientific evidence of allergy to fluoride levels of 1 ppm in water supplies.” The reply from the AAAAI was,

              The answer to your question is difficult to come by. The evidence is difficult to interpret. My personal opinion is that I do not feel there is evidence of any true allergy to fluoride at this level. However, there are proponents of theory that reactions at this level can occur. I am sharing with you some of the evidence in the literature to help you come to your own conclusion in this regard.

              Perhaps the “pivotal” observation that gave some credibility to the possibility that allergic reactions to fluoride can occur came from an article which appeared in the Annals of Allergy in 1967. I have, for your convenience, copied below an abstract of this article. It is by J. J. Shea, et al. The article consisted of case reports of six patients who experienced “allergic reactions” after the use of fluoride containing toothpaste and vitamins. Some of these had the trappings of a true allergic response (atopic dermatitis, urticaria, and “respiratory allergy”), whereas other manifestations (stomatitis) did not.

              The evidence in the literature prior to that time in terms of reactions to medications containing fluoride had credence enough to have a warning inserted in the Physician’s Desk Reference, which I have also, for your convenience, copied below. However, these references were to preparations such as medication, toothpaste, vitamins, et cetera, containing fluoride. They did not deal, as you can see, with fluoride in the water. The question as to whether fluoride in the water causes adverse events is probably best summarized by a document evidently sponsored by the American Dental Association. I have also copied it below for you.

              That statement from the ADA is,

              The answer to your question is difficult to come by. The evidence is difficult to interpret. My personal opinion is that I do not feel there is evidence of any true allergy to fluoride at this level. However, there are proponents of theory that reactions at this level can occur. I am sharing with you some of the evidence in the literature to help you come to your own conclusion in this regard.

              Perhaps the “pivotal” observation that gave some credibility to the possibility that allergic reactions to fluoride can occur came from an article which appeared in the Annals of Allergy in 1967. I have, for your convenience, copied below an abstract of this article. It is by J. J. Shea, et al. The article consisted of case reports of six patients who experienced “allergic reactions” after the use of fluoride containing toothpaste and vitamins. Some of these had the trappings of a true allergic response (atopic dermatitis, urticaria, and “respiratory allergy”), whereas other manifestations (stomatitis) did not.

              The evidence in the literature prior to that time in terms of reactions to medications containing fluoride had credence enough to have a warning inserted in the Physician’s Desk Reference, which I have also, for your convenience, copied below. However, these references were to preparations such as medication, toothpaste, vitamins, et cetera, containing fluoride. They did not deal, as you can see, with fluoride in the water. The question as to whether fluoride in the water causes adverse events is probably best summarized by a document evidently sponsored by the American Dental Association. I have also copied it below for you.

              The Australian Dental Association has also weighted in,

              ARE SOME PEOPLE ALLERGIC TO FLUORIDE?
              There has never been a case of an allergy to fluoride. If a person was allergic to fluoride they could not drink present water supplies because all water contains some fluoride. Similarly, because of its natural abundance in nature, fluoride is contained in virtually all food and drinks. People allergic to fluoride would also be allergic to tea, coffee, mineral water and seawater.

            • gopiballava Says:

              Thanks for clarifying that. 9mg/day is below the maximum tolerable level for healthy people. For the vast majority of people, the amount of fluoride you consume would not be a problem.

              “I asked you what your calculations came to as you said you did your own. I haven’t heard back. What amount did you come up with of your entire intake?”

              You misunderstood. I was referring to research into whether municipal fluoride helped with dental health, and whether there were frequent problems at normal consumption levels. I am also unconvinced that testing solid food is reliable. I don’t think there are any reliable ways to determine how much fluoride you’re getting from solid foods.

              I have seen nothing that makes me think that testing my own food for fluoride is important. If I were to start testing, I’d probably start with lead compounds.

              Your 9mg/day result does not suggest that everybody should test their own fluoride consumption levels. You aren’t consuming abnormally high levels of fluoride. Rather, if the allergy test you got is accurate, you are allergic.

              A fair number of people are allergic to eggs. Would you tell everybody to test the egg levels of their food? Or would you tell people to get tested for egg allergies? The latter, I hope!

            • Housewife Says:

              You are incorrect. Look at this site and on the right hand side. It says 4mg is the maximum contaminant level. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm/ So yes, 9mg is over the amount. That test of 9mg was taken a year after I originally was confirmed with fluoride allergies and after I thought my consumption was reduced 6 months later. I have no idea what it was at it’d apex..

              I am sure there are more products, but I just Googled it and came up with this one that does test food and liquid. I am sure you can test food with a cheaper unit if it is put in a blender. http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/Test-Kits-detect-fluoride-chloride-and-sodium-450345

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Your really starting to show your shallow knowledge of this subject. 4 ppm is the maximum contaminate level for ENDEMIC fluoride….this is NOT the standard for artificial fluoridation.
              For adults the upper limit is 10mg. So yes, 9mg is within the limit.

              10. Why is EPA’s drinking water standard (referred to as the MCL or MCLG) different than HHS’ recommended optimal fluoridation level for community drinking water systems?

              EPA’s drinking water standard differs from HHS’ recommended optimal fluoridation level because the two benchmarks have different purposes and are set under different authorities.
              The EPA’s enforceable standard for the highest level of fluoride that is allowed in public water supplies is 4.0 milligrams per liter, and is set to protect against risks from exposure to too much fluoride. The HHS proposed recommended optimal level of 0.7 milligrams per liter is set to promote public health benefits of fluoride for preventing tooth decay while minimizing the chance for dental fluorosis.

              I just Googled it and came up with this one that does test food and liquid.

              Considering thats just a press release I cant put much stock in it. Look, testing for fluoride in solid food is a lot more complex than just using a blender and test strip in involves acids and laboratory work. You simply don’t seem to understand how complex it actually is. It not something a device you buy of the internet is gonna do for you. I’m highly skeptical that you actually have accurate measurements of your solid food fluoride intake.

            • Housewife Says:

              “Your really starting to show your shallow knowledge of this subject. 4 ppm is the maximum contaminate level for ENDEMIC fluoride….this is NOT the standard for artificial fluoridation”

              We get both artificial AND mostly endemic.Not sure what you are talking about.

              “testing for fluoride in solid food is a lot more complex”

              which is why I had a professional help me do it. Get your own.

              Never in my life have I seen someone argue and argue about refusing to do their own testing. Perhaps you don’t want to get the results? I would think someone like you would jump at it, to prove to the world you are right. But this appears to be a ‘belief’ , like a religion, that you want to force on others without doing your own testing. Unfortunately…your belief hurts people. I get that you like fluoride, but it CAN be a CHOICE. And to make it otherwise, is a dictatorship. I would understand if it saved lives like vaccinations in that the good of the many outweigh the few. but THIS doesn’t save lives. In fact it creates a great expense to communities when spending is tight and to the poor who have to get corrective work. A cavity can be filled for 50 dollars these days, But corrective fluorosis is expensive. It is not cost effective. I have always been suspicious of dentists who support fluoridation. It is like painters supporting no-paint siding. It puts them out of work if it works.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              We get both artificial AND mostly endemic.Not sure what you are talking about.

              Lets try this again,

              EPA’s drinking water standard differs from HHS’ recommended optimal fluoridation level because the two benchmarks have different purposes and are set under different authorities.
              The EPA’s enforceable standard for the highest level of fluoride that is allowed in public water supplies is 4.0 milligrams per liter, and is set to protect against risks from exposure to too much fluoride. The HHS proposed recommended optimal level of 0.7 milligrams per liter is set to promote public health benefits of fluoride for preventing tooth decay while minimizing the chance for dental fluorosis.

              Is that clearer? The FDA standard is the maximum amount allowed to occur naturally before the government has to take action to reduce it. The HHS standard is the optimal level for recommend addition of fluoride (adjusted for any naturally present fluoride).
              You said that your city only puts in “.07 is because we also have naturally occurring fluoride of .05”. That totals .12ppm or .12mg per liter. This is far below both the FDA and HHS concentration recommendations. At 80oz (2.4 liters) a day that is only about .29mg total. This is far below the upper limit set at 10mg per day for adults. I don’t see whats concerning here.

              which is why I had a professional help me do it. Get your own.

              I would like to get in touch with your professional so I can learn more about what tests they actually performed. So far you havn’t been able to tell what device was used to do the testing, how the solid food testing was done, if it was done in a lab then the name of the lab and whether they are state certified (there are lots of bogus labs out there offering scam allergy, water, blood, ect tests). In the end I could just say I did do testing myself and state a number and simply not back it up with anything else, because that about all you have done. We have no evidence that your measurements are valid, why should I go out of my way to do this for you.

              Never in my life have I seen someone argue and argue about refusing to do their own testing.

              I see no need to do testing when there are already numerous studies ( I posted some earlier & here is another one) on total fluoride intake demonstrating a lack of risk, I also don’t consume some of the highest risk items such a black tea nor use prescription strength fluoride products. A perusal of the USDA stats on common fluoride levels in foods doesn’t have me worried in the slightest. I also so no reason to waste my own time and money to satisfy your demand, I’m not concerned that my personal intake exceeds that maximum so why should I spend the money. But if your willing to finance it then I would be generous and make the time for the testing.
              And once again, having my own intake measurement tells us NOTHING about whether fluoridation as a whole is safer even whether my dosage is safe.
              Lets say my intake is 3mg a day…what does that tell us…nothing, it doesn’t even tell us if 3mg a day is safe or not nor does it tell us anything about community wide fluoridation. You keep deflecting to a meaningless question to avoid the central one. Once again, Have my own measurement tells use nothing about whether community fluoridation is actually safe, this is a pointless distraction.

              And to make it otherwise, is a dictatorship.

              Oh get real. The US is still a democratic nation despite all its problems. Fluoridation is not federally mandated, its a matter of local government. To cry “dictatorship” is just childish hyperbole.

              but THIS doesn’t save lives.

              It saves teeth, time, and money…and there is some evidence that it may even save lives. Good dental health is associated with reduced heart disease because of the impact of dental infections (which can get in the blood stream) on the heart. In fact numerous studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 7, 8) show a protective effect from fluoride on heart disease. So while its primarily about dental health, yes, fluoridation may actually save lives…I would still mainly bank on the dental health benefits of it though.

              It is not cost effective.

              Can you prove this beyond merely asserting it. Do you actually know the rates of people seeking corrective dental work from fluorosis versus those seeking other dental work? It may be true that such dental work is expensive but you assume that its actually necessary and being sought out. The data does not support this assertion however. Recent reports show that only about 1% of the population has severe fluorosis, the only kind needing any treatment. It should also be noted that much of the severe fluorosis in the US comes from individuals drinking groundwater above the HHS recommended level rather than from city fluoridated water. In fact there are colloquial names for the naturally occurring fluorosis, names like Texas teeth and Colorado Brown Stain, its disingenuous to blame this on fluoridation.

              In actual studies on the subject of cost effectiveness fluoridation was found to be quite cost effective.

              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

              I have always been suspicious of dentists who support fluoridation. It is like painters supporting no-paint siding. It puts them out of work if it works.

              This is just conspiratorial thinking.

            • gopiballava Says:

              “You are incorrect. Look at this site and on the right hand side. It says 4mg is the maximum contaminant level”

              4mg per liter. Not total consumption per day, which is what your 9mg referred to.

              The per-liter limits are specifically intended to ensure that the total intake from *all sources* doesn’t exceed safe amounts.

              Didn’t the person who helped you perform the testing tell you that your results were within the commonly accepted safe range?

            • Housewife Says:

              “Maximum contaminant level” means just that. Show me proof dated after the standard was changed in 2011, that maximum does not mean maximum. Like I said before….that test was AFTER I reduced my amounts. In any case, it is still not safe for me with or without allergies.

            • gopiballava Says:

              “”Maximum contaminant level” means just that.”

              Yes. It means that drinking water should not contain more than 4mg/liter. Your drinking water is under this level.

              You said you consume 80 fl.oz/day. That is ~2.4 liters. If your water had the maximum contaminant level of 4mg/liter, then you would be consuming 9.6 mg/day just from your water alone.

              Yes, maximum does mean maximum. But the 4mg/liter is the maximum *per liter of water in a city municipal water supply*. Your municipal water supply has less than 4mg/liter.

            • Housewife Says:

              According to the EPA, “Some people who drink water containing fluoride in excess of the MCL (4 mg) over many years could get bone disease (including pain and tenderness of the bones); children may get mottled teeth.

              I drink 80 oz. of water. You are correct, if I only drank the water alone, I am at maximum. But I get fluoride in food and other drinks. So yes you are correct, I am in danger because of exceeding the amount. I have pain throughout my body on a daily basis. Some days are better than others. When I first had this, I was in so much pain, I used a cane to walk. Reducing fluoride has helped a lot. I just looked at the water specs for my city. As it turns out, the reason they put only .07 is because we also have naturally occurring fluoride of .05. So actually, we are getting 1.3 a day.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              I just looked at the water specs for my city. As it turns out, the reason they put only .07 is because we also have naturally occurring fluoride of .05. So actually, we are getting 1.3 a day.

              How are you getting 1.3 from .05 & .07??? That just doesn’t add up. If you are saying that there is already .05ppm natural fluoride in your water and that your city adds .07ppm in fluoridation then the level fluoride in your water is 0.12ppm or .12 mg per liter this is far below both the HHS’s optimal fluoridation level of .7ppm (or .7mg/L) and the EPA MCL of 4ppm (or 4mg/L…please note this is PER LITER NOT TOTAL INTAKE PER DAY).
              If you drink 80 oz of water then that is about 2.4 liters, so at the levels you stated (.05 + .07ppm) you are getting about .29mg from water a day. This is far FAR below the upper limit of 10mg a day set by the Institute of Medicine.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Gopi, I’m skeptical until fluoride allergy can be shown to even be medically recognized by something other than a link from a dedicated anti-fluoride website.

            • Housewife Says:

              Here are some reference’s for you: “In hypersensitive individuals, fluorides occasionally cause skin eruptions such as atopic dermatitis, eczema or urticaria. Gastric distress, headache and weakness have also been reported. These hypersensitivity reactions usually disappear promptly after discontinuation of the fluoride. In rare cases, a delay in the eruption of teeth has been reported.”
              – PHYSICIANS’ DESK REFERENCE, 1994, 48th Edition, p. 2335-6.”

              And if you were to read the links on FAN, they are from reputable sources. It is pretty naive to think that no one could possibly be allergic to fluoride. I mean like you said, some people are allergic to eggs. 7% of people are allergic to eggs. So should we therefore force ALL people to eat eggs when 7% cannot eat it? Makes no sense. Especially when people can get it on their own. This is not a dictatorship country is it? Stop forcing it.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              THE PDR citation is addressed here, its not a valid proof.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              This is not a dictatorship country is it?

              No its not a dictatorship, we have democracy. Once again fluoridation is not federally mandated, its a matter for local governments.
              Seriously how do you can a community voting for fluoridation a “dictatorship”? I don’t want to force fluoridation by my will alone, I want to help counter misinformation so that people can make rational choices in the voting booth.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              So where are the epidemics of skeletal fluorosis in the US? Its been decade, we should be seeing it by now. The rates of skeletal fluorosis do not correlate well to a communities fluoridation status. Skeletal fluorosis is in fact quite rare in the US. Where skeletal fluorosis IS a real problem is India and China, where the levels they are exposed to through food and water are much higher.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      I would question the accuracy of fluoride test kits in the hands of untrained amateurs, nor do I think that such self-gathered data points are that scientifically useful for public policy decisions. However studies, such as this one, have actually been done on total fluoride intake and found that no group other than infants are “at risk of exceeding the UL”. Other studies have similar results with only some making recommendations for limiting toothpaste use in very young children to mitigate any possible risk (something which I support). In the end improper fluoride dentifrice and supplement use are the risk of most concern for limited populations, a focus on fluoridation as a cause of concern is misplaced. You are correct that there is no good evidence showing that fluoride is absorbed in any significant amount, this is precisely why its improper for the anti-fluoridation community to make extraordinary claims about it while trying to sell shower filters.

      • Housewife Says:

        There is no shower filter that can remove fluoride very well because it is a very tiny molecule and slips through everything. If it works at all, it is 50% and only for a short time. Please post a link where the anti-fluoride community is selling shower filters…I may want one, lol, but just to test on a meter to see if it works. I have found the meter I borrowed pretty accurate and consistent to what the city says we are supposed to get. You sound pretty astute and can learn how to use it I am sure. I am no scientist but I was able to use it. Then again it is a friend’s and they showed me how. But because everyone does have different intakes, unless you test your own, you can’t really know. The studies out there, did not take in effect foods nor medications that have fluoride. Many Americans take medications. So really in order to fully know, you either test your different intakes from all consumption or send it in somewhere to get it tested. Until there is a study that shows all of the numbers of our usage and variables, no one can know and there are too many variables. If you want to get an ‘idea’, go to the sites that list the amounts of fluoride in foods and tally it up. It gives a rough estimate. Since the soil in China has high fluoride and we get a lot of food from there, the amounts may be different. In any case, what is important here, is that there is not enough information to ‘make’ people ingest it. Vitamins are good too, but we aren’t forced to take it. Therefore it should be an option only, to avoid people getting sick, which they are. In the stores, there is baby fluoride bottled water sold by Nestle. Even though the government says it is harmful to infants and children, we have products that are out there with no warnings. This is concerning. Are you opposed to giving people options in their fluoride consumption?

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          Really, you havnt seen a single anti-fluoride website shilling water filters for your shower? Try here.

          The studies out there, did not take in effect foods nor medications that have fluoride.

          I posted one that did. Please go back and look at it.

          If you want to get an ‘idea’

          …or you can look at actual studies that measure fluid and food intake and fluoride levels. Again I posted one and you didn’t seem to see it, please go back to the previous comment for the link

          Vitamins are good too, but we aren’t forced to take it.

          Great analogy, in fact vitamins are often added to the public’s food, milk is Vitamin D fortified, grains are fortified with folic acid, we add iodine to salt, calcium is added to juice, ect.

          • Housewife Says:

            “Really, you havnt seen a single anti-fluoride website shilling water filters for your shower?”

            Okay, so I looked at the link for the shower filter peddling. I don’t see where Fluoride Alert is doing that or any other serious fluoride information group. What was listed were quacks who peddle quite a few things. There are all kinds of people that peddle things, including yourself ( In this post you peddle Frank Water), but that doesn’t mean that ALL anti-fluoride people are trying to peddle goods, nor are you, if you believe in something. That is a little unsettling to group people together. People like Alex Jones are the worst at peddling and do lose credibility even if they are slightly on to something, but to say that all people are like a few radicals, is being closed minded. Fluoride Alert, the main anti-fluoride group out there, is not endorsing anything but a few books. In fact last year I wrote to them asking them to give me a company name for water filtration. They refused. They even refused to really tell me what type was better.

            “I posted one that did. Please go back and look at it.”

            I saw a link about New Zealand. Was that the one you wanted me to see? I did not see anything about America or American diet nor about medications or non water drinks like grape juice or tea. I could be just missing the right link, so please give me a link. I am new to this stuff, so have patience with me. Fluoride in medications brings the ppm up significantly, even more than food and water. But people do not know this. Do you have a study that includes medications and non water beverages in the overall tally? Also, how is it really possible to have ANY accurate study based on consumption due to thousands of variables? We all eat and drink different things and regions also make a different effect. It is illogical to base a forced medication on so many consumption variables. I have to drink 80 ml of water a day because of medical reasons, whereas my grandmother gets away with 30 ml. There is no logic to what you say even in the perimeters of creating a ‘norm’ with so many variables. Also depending on where it is farms, pesticides also contain fluoride, according to this blog. http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02/common-food-items-could-contain-180.html Fruit juices contain 6.8 ppm of fluoride, which is already over the max. They believe this is the case because of the pesticides.

            “Great analogy, in fact vitamins are often added to the public’s food, milk is Vitamin D fortified, grains are fortified with folic acid, we add iodine to salt, calcium is added to juice, ect.”

            I was not aware that I am forced to drink or eat those things. I don’t even eat or drink what you posted.That was the point. People don’t have a choice in fluoridation. How am I supposed to go to a restaurant if they cook with fluoride water? How am I supposed to take a shower in an apartment without fluoride water? How are the poor including myself supposed to drink un-fluoridated water or afford filters? I would like to know why you are opposed to people making their own choices on fluoride. I get that you like fluoride…that is cool, but can you consume it on your own? This is not rhetorical. Please let me know why we cannot consume this independently.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              I don’t see where Fluoride Alert is doing that or any other serious fluoride information group. What was listed were quacks who peddle quite a few things.

              The FAN does have links on their webpage where you can purchase filters in their FAQ, but you are correct that the majority of shilling is actually done by folks who are not solely focused on fluoride or by filter companies who have seized onto the movement, these people however are still not treated as outsiders by the majority of the anti-fluoridation community. I’m also glad that you can recognize these folks as quacks. I think you missed the main point of the statement however. The anti-fluoridation community shouldn’t be making any extraordinary claims (whether they are selling something with that claim or not) about fluoride in the shower if they acknowledge that there is a lack of studies showing fluoride absorption from bathing and showering.

              That is a little unsettling to group people together.

              When Mercola, Natural News, Natural Society, the FAN, NYSCOF, and others all befriend each other and cross post writings from each other constantly its hard not to take them as a lump. If the FAN or NYSCOF wants to they could publicly distance themselves from and denounce such quacks and scammers, but until now they seem happy to have them helping to spread the anti-fluoride gospel.
              But yes, you are correct that you cant lump everyone into one and I’m sorry Ive you feel Ive implies that you hold a position that you don’t. However the anti-fluoridation community seems to have done little to distance themselves from such quacks and such people seem to often be embraced by the vast majority of activists in the area.

              I saw a link about New Zealand…I did not see anything about America or American diet…

              New Zealand is a devolved nation with water fluoridation and food intake comparable to other devolved nations including the US. perhaps I should have been more clear, the problem isn’t between comparing China to America, the problem is comparing a non-developed nation (with endemic fluoride) with a developed one (with fluoridation). But to address the issue of America here is a study on Chicago (& it contains references to other relevant studies such as in England)

              I have to drink 80 ml of water a day because of medical reasons

              You consume less that 3 ounces of water a day? That doesn’t sound right.

              Also depending on where it is farms, pesticides also contain fluoride, according to this blog.

              That’s more of an issue overseas as most of those pesticides have be discontinued here. But that’s far more an argument again over use of such pesticides than against water fluoridation, even assuming that such pesticides area significant source of fluoride in diets (which they are not).

              Fruit juices contain 6.8 ppm of fluoride, which is already over the max.

              I’m not sure of the source of that figure but I would bet that its likely from the Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, in which case you should be aware that their measurements appear flawed and have been contradicted by more recent measurements.

              I was not aware that I am forced to drink or eat those things.

              You aren’t, and neither are you forced to drink tap water. It’s a modern service we are privileged to have. Seriously municipal water service is a major privilege so often taken for granted, if you don’t like it then dig your own well.

              Please let me know why we cannot consume this independently

              It comes down to the issue of community responsibility versus individual responsibility. In the area of health based public policy the former often makes the most sense and has the best outcome.

            • Housewife Says:

              “if you don’t like it then dig your own well.” Yea that is feasible for a poor person to do who lives in the city. I guess poor people are the ones most affected by this. They have the most fluorisis from fluoridation, and not the resources to be able to counter measure the effects of forced medication, nor the money to spend to fix their teeth. I have gone into debt in order to get filters to ease my personal challenges with being sick from fluoride.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              The point is, having water delivered to your door is a privilege, yet you act like this privilege is being forced down your throat with a dose of poison to boot. I’ve lived in rural areas without municipal water service, we lived off well water, in fact being in Texas our well water may have even had higher fluoride levels than the city water. If you don’t want to accept the privilege of government water service then you will simply have to do what the rest of humanity world wide has done throughout history, work to get their own water.

              Poor people are the ones most affect and that’s the point, fluoridation is a social justice issue and helps to iron out health disparities due to unequal healthcare access as well as lowering the health care cost burden on poor families. Ceasing fluoridation would primarily negatively impact the poor as well by increasing healthcare costs and dental issues.
              The idea that poor people across America are ailing from skeletal fluorosis and other health issues cause by fluoridation is simply a false narrative.

            • Housewife Says:

              I never said skeletal…I said fluorosis. To be specific, dental fluorosis. And the poor do have to pay more for dental fluorosis. The poor have programs for dental care, so they do not need this extra poison that has been proven in some studies, to not even be effective. They do not need to spend $800-$2000 correcting dental fluorosis either. So saying that the poor is getting the better end of the stick here, is ridiculous. I would gladly build a well if that were an option. Being poisoned and not being able to effectively counteract it, is wrong. I pay for my water you know, so therefore I should have water that I can drink. It is a privilege, but I also pay for it. Why not spend the money on giving the poor dental exams or toothpaste. Give people options. Why do you promote forcing things on people. Do I force you to love whom you want to love?, believe in the religion I want to believe? Make you eat what I want you to eat? Make you take medications I want you to take? You are doing that to me.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              To be specific, dental fluorosis. And the poor do have to pay more for dental fluorosis. The poor have programs for dental care, so they do not need this extra poison that has been proven in some studies, to not even be effective. They do not need to spend $800-$2000 correcting dental fluorosis either.

              Can you prove this beyond merely asserting it. Do you actually know the rates of people seeking corrective dental work from fluorosis versus those seeking other dental work? It may be true that such dental work is expensive but you assume that its actually necessary and being sought out. The data does not support this assertion however. Recent reports show that only about 1% of the population has severe fluorosis, the only kind needing any treatment. It should also be noted that much of the severe fluorosis in the US comes from individuals drinking groundwater above the HHS recommended level rather than from city fluoridated water. In fact there are colloquial names for the naturally occurring fluorosis, names like Texas teeth and Colorado Brown Stain, its disingenuous to blame this on fluoridation.

              In actual studies on the subject of cost effectiveness fluoridation was found to be quite cost effective.

              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

              Why not spend the money on giving the poor dental exams or toothpaste.

              I support these measures too but neither have been show to be as effective in reaching undeserved communities and fluoridation. Its a simply and cheap way to
              promote public health.

              Why do you promote forcing things on people.

              Again fluoridation is not federally mandated nor am I arguing to make it so. This talk of “force” and “dictatorship” is just childish hyperbole. Fluoridation is a local issue. I simply wish to counteract misinformation so that people can make rational decisions in the voting booth.

            • Housewife Says:

              “I simply wish to counteract misinformation so that people can make rational decisions in the voting booth.” We didn’t vote on it and either has a lot of communities. It was done without voter approval. THAT is a dictatorship. Let me tell you what happened here and what happens in many places. They get funding from other sources for fluoridation and then have the taxpayer pay the maintenance cost without voter approval. They take it out of some other fund that the taxpayer does. Here not only has fluoridation been done like that but other building projects. Sorry…this is not a democracy. When we protested it, city council passed it anyway. It appears you are not aware of the politics of fluoridation. Perhaps you need to read the Fluoride Deception? And it is NOT cheap!!!! It costs millions of dollars here. saves little.

              My estimates were way under. I was figuring in 1 tooth for corrective procedure. Look at this. Turns out it cost $16,000. Look up the procedure if you do not believe it. And by the way , there are, like this site says, sealants that are cheaper and less damaging to people. It is shocking you think this is okay for people to have. 41% of children have it and it causes a lot of mental stigma as well. http://www.noforcedfluoride.org/dentalfluorosis.html There ARE better, cheaper, safer, ethical solutions.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              We didn’t vote on it and either has a lot of communities.

              I didn’t say that. Fluoridation is implemented both through popular votes and administrative action, both are within our democratic frame work.

              THAT is a dictatorship.

              No, that is still hyperbole

              Sorry…this is not a democracy. When we protested it, city council passed it anyway.

              City councils are part of a democratic frame work, city council members are elected representatives and their decisions can be challenged in multiple ways including through initiatives and referendums. Do you believe everything any city council or representative body passes and act of dictatorship?

              It appears you are not aware of the politics of fluoridation.

              No I know about communities that vote directly on it and those they do it through representatives. It just that you seem to not understand representative politics and political tools already at hand to challenge legislation. Just because your side lost, doesn’t mean it wasn’t within a democratic framework. Perhaps the following will illuminate,

              In the United States, political decisions about fluoridation are made at the state and local levels. There are two different methods for making these decisions. First, a governing body or agency, such as a legislature, city council, or local health department, may decide fluoridation policy. Second, in many states voters determine such issues through ballot measures, such as initiatives or referendums.1 Overall, fluoridation referendum campaigns have had mixed success in the U.S. From 1950 to 1967, 1,009 such referendums were held with fluoridation being adopted in 41% and rejected in 59%. From 1980 to 1988, 150 referendums were held with voters approving fluoridation 36% of the time. During the subsequent period 1989 to 1994 the trend reversed with fluoridation supporters winning 19 (59%) of the 32 referendums conducted. Historically, however, adoption of fluoridation has occurred more often through administrative action by governing bodies than through voters. While only one out of every three referendums resulted in adoption of fluoridation from 1980 to 1988, approximately three out of every four administrative actions resulted in adoption of fluoridation during this same period (Neenan, 1996). The greater success with governing bodies than among voters continued in the 2000 election cycle, with pro-fluoridation forces winning ten of eleven votes conducted by city councils or boards, and losing 14 of 23 ballot measures. However, fluoridation was approved by voters in the largest cities or counties where it appeared on the ballot in San Antonio, Texas and Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas.

              The issue of how fluoridation is decided politically falls into a broader debate over the merits of referendums and initiatives, and the advantages and disadvantages of direct versus representative democracy (Magleby, 1984; Cronin, 1989; Bowler and Donavan, 1998; Sabato, 2001; Broder, 2000; Abrams, 2002; Gerber, 1999; Zimmerman, 2001; Waters; Magleby and Patterson 1998; Dubois and Feeney, 1998; Haskell, 2001; Bowler et al., 1998; Caves, 1992; Smith, 1998; Ellis, 2002; Witt and McCorkle, 1997). Most of the framers of the Constitution were strong advocates of representative democracy, and were skeptical of giving voters direct authority over lawmaking. “Pure democracies,” James Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention” (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, [1788] 1987; quoted in Sabato et al., 2001). The widespread use of referendums and initiatives stems from the Populist movement of the late 19th century and the Progressive movement of the early 20th century (Cain and Miller, 2001). The use of referendums and initiatives has increased significantly since the late 1970s, igniting a debate among citizens, academics, and political practitioners over direct democracy (Ernst, 2001). Sabato et al. nicely summarize both sides of the argument.

              Proponents of the initiative process argue that ballot initiatives serve as an important tool of “last resort” when legislatures fail to act in the public interest. They also maintain that initiatives allow the popular will to be expressed directly without the “distortion” of representative politics or “special” interests. What’s more, argue proponents, ballot initiatives encourage change, reduce citizen alienation, heighten voter awareness, and eliminate corruption endemic to the legislative process.

              To counter these arguments, critics of the ballot initiative offer a litany of complaints about the conduct and propriety of the process. For example, many critics claim that political consultants and moneyed interests now exercise far too much influence in ballot campaigns, polluting a process originally intended to give citizens voice in policymaking. Other critics claim that voters possess neither the knowledge nor the expertise to understand and evaluate the measures on which they are voting. Still other critics have blasted the ballot initiative process for producing poorly written laws and facilitating the passage of legislation that disregards minority rights. Finally, many critics of the ballot initiatives lament the shrill, uncompromising, and manipulative discourse typically found in contemporary ballot initiative campaigns. Such discourse, they argue, is a poor substitute for the deliberation and compromise that accompany serious legislative debate (x-xi).

              So while you appear opposed to fluoridation by administrative action, how do you feel about fluoridation by popular vote which many communities enjoy?

              Perhaps you need to read the Fluoride Deception?

              I have, I didn’t find it convincing. But if you want to look at a particular citation from it…

              And it is NOT cheap!!!! It costs millions of dollars here. saves little.

              Can you prove this beyond merely asserting it. Do you actually know the rates of people seeking corrective dental work from fluorosis versus those seeking other dental work? It may be true that such dental work is expensive but you assume that its actually necessary and being sought out. The data does not support this assertion however. Recent reports show that only about 1% of the population has severe fluorosis, the only kind needing any treatment. It should also be noted that much of the severe fluorosis in the US comes from individuals drinking groundwater above the HHS recommended level rather than from city fluoridated water. In fact there are colloquial names for the naturally occurring fluorosis, names like Texas teeth and Colorado Brown Stain, its disingenuous to blame this on fluoridation.

              In actual studies on the subject of cost effectiveness fluoridation was found to be quite cost effective. You just keep asserting it not cost effective without address the actual data presented. Deal with the data first.

              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

              My estimates were way under. I was figuring in 1 tooth for corrective procedure. Look at this. Turns out it cost $16,000. Look up the procedure if you do not believe it.

              I’m not questioning the cost of the procedure, I’m questioning the actual amount of people needing such treatment. Do you actually know the rates of people seeking corrective dental work from fluorosis versus those seeking other dental work? It may be true that such dental work is expensive but you assume that its actually necessary and being sought out. The data does not support this assertion however. Recent reports show that only about 1% of the population has severe fluorosis, the only kind needing any treatment. It should also be noted that much of the severe fluorosis in the US comes from individuals drinking groundwater above the HHS recommended level rather than from city fluoridated water. In fact there are colloquial names for the naturally occurring fluorosis, names like Texas teeth and Colorado Brown Stain, its disingenuous to blame this on fluoridation.

              In actual studies (which Ive posted and you have not addressed) on the subject of cost effectiveness fluoridation was found to be quite cost effective. You just keep asserting it not cost effective without address the actual data presented. Deal with the data first.

              sealants that are cheaper and less damaging to people.

              Sealants and use of dental fluoride and-or fluoridation are not mutual exclusive however. While I personally agree that using a sealant is a safe preventative dental intervention, there are many on the medical fringe promoting fear of them, largely due to BPA and other unstated toxins so you may not find the argument as acceptable even among many anti-fluoridationists.
              And sealants simply are not cheaper they cost about $25 to $50 per tooth (source 1, source 2) which if you are lucky enough to have all 32 teeth will cost between $800 & $1,600 for your full mouth and can last 5-10 years (source: CDC) making for a cost of somewhere between $80 per year on the extreme low end to $320 per year on the higher end. On the other hand fluoridation cost estimates vary but range from 25 cents per year per person (Pinellas County 2011) to about a dollar for smaller communities. When adjusted for labor and maintenance costs it ranges from 31 cents to $2.12 per person per year depending on different factors such as community size. When saved health care dollars are factored in, the cost is negative and represents a cost saving to the community

              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.

              Will sealants replace fluoride for cavity protection?

              No. Fluorides, such as those used in toothpaste, mouth rinse, and community water supplies also help to prevent decay, but in a different way. Sealants keep germs and food particles out of the grooves by covering them with a safe plastic coating. Sealants and fluorides work together to prevent tooth decay.

              source: CDC

              41% of children have it and it causes a lot of mental stigma as well.

              Your being misleading here, that figure is for adolescents aged 12-15 for ALL forms of fluorosis, the vast majority of these cases are “very mild” (28,5%) and “mild” (8.6%). Combined incidence of moderate and severe is (3.6%.) The authors however included both fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. Other information shows that optimally fluoridated water is unlikely to cause severe or moderate fluorosis and that other sources of fluoride must be involved such as misuse of fluoride supplements and toothpaste, industrial pollution, and naturally occurring fluoride in the ground water from non-municipal sources. City water fluoridation simply doesn’t cause “Texas teeth” but Texas groundwater will, so will ignoring proper warning labels on toothpaste and fluoride products. Most studies on the subject point toward irresponsible toothpaste and supplement use and exposure to high groundwater levels are primary cause rather than city fluoridation.
              The anti-fluoridation community also confuses the public further by passing around unsourced pictures of moderately and severely fluorosed teeth as if they are representative of the much larger figures they cite for mild fluorosis. No attempt is made to note the probable cause of the individual cases of fluorosis picture as well. Instead, activists act as if these picture are actually representative of fluorosis from community water fluoridation at optimal levels.

              Enamel fluorosis is not a disease but rather affects the way that teeth look. In the vast majority of cases, enamel fluorosis appears as barely noticeable faint white lines or streaks on tooth enamel and does not affect the function or health of the teeth. In fact, in many cases, the effect is so subtle that, usually only a dental expert would notice it during an examination. Enamel fluorosis occurs only when baby and permanent teeth are forming under the gums. Once teeth break through the gums, they cannot develop enamel fluorosis.

              There ARE better, cheaper, safer, ethical solutions.

              Water fluoridation has been shown to be the cheapest and most wide reaching preventative option.

        • skepticalvegan Says:

          There is no shower filter that can remove fluoride very well

          There are indeed filtration systems that can filter out fluoride, one such type is a activated alumina filter.

          • Housewife Says:

            Shower units that screw on are only 80% effective (the best manufacturers) for a few months and then drop to 50% . They last only 4-5 months. Even the companies that makes them admits this when you ask them directly in an email. I can’t afford a $100 filter every few months. A tester confirms what the manufacturer says about their product. Besides, why do people like me who are on a daily basis sick from fluoride, and poor, have to go into debt to protect themselves from harm? Ridiculous.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Simply put, I’m skeptical of you claims of being sick from fluoride. Just as I’m skeptical of claims that people are being harmed by Wifi. Such harm simply has not been establish clinically for any population. People’s anecdotes are not proof. A “fluoride allergy” has never been established or scientifically recognized just as a “wifi allergy” has never been established.

  2. Housewife Says:

    I went to a pre-screening of a new documentary that is unreleased (coming soon-needs editing) where the head scientist for the FDA was told to shred evidence against fluoride and it’s effects. He merely suggested more study should happen because there was evidence that it was harmful to the public. He then was fired when he refused to destroy documents. He went to court and the FDA not only had to pay him for wrongfully firing him, but give him his job back. Unfortunately they seized his studies and he was not allowed to conduct them twice. He was then harassed again at work. The documentary also interviews other scientist where the same behavior occurred. I have to admit the film is boring, but the eye witnesses are valid. Why would this information be suppressed? There are also 15 new Chinese studies that have yet to be translated. I wonder what is in those. Too many questions to be safe for mass forced consumption, especially when people have options.

    • Housewife Says:

      I just found this about the EPA. What are your thoughts about the EPA findings? http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

      • skepticalvegan Says:

        The link you posted was NOT the FDA, rather it was a union, National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050, representing employees in Washington. The majority of the membership are not scientists and have no expertise in fluoride issues, further the National Federation of Federal Employees is not a scientific body that performs research. This is little different than the global warming deniers who present “lists of professionals” who oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming that are composed mostly of lawyers and meteorologists (non-experts on climate). Its an attempt to make it look like you have some scientific authority on your side, but its just a smokescreen at best, its a poor tactic.

        Funny how it is you who dismisses the actual FDA’s statements and the CDC’s statements on the safety of fluoridation. Trying to pretend that a workers union represents the scientific consensus while ignorign actual scientific bodies is either deluded or dishonest.

        • Housewife Says:

          So when they say that they are comprised of 1500 scientists, they are ‘lying”?

          • skepticalvegan Says:

            The link posted doesnt actually say that. Go back and read it again.

            • Housewife Says:

              It says “Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.” You are right, it doesn’t distinguish how many of each. If you do go to the actual EPA site, you will see a lot of their findings back what is said in this link however. Read the front page and then click on the links.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              No, their findings are not backed up by the FDA or the scientific community. In fact some of the claims, such as references to the China studies, have been direct refuted here. All they are doing is rehashing old anti-fluoride propaganda.

              Why do you wish to put so much weight on this statement from a union that is not a scientific body rather than the FDA itself or the CDC or the WHO?

  3. Housewife Says:

    So I wanted to know whom I was dealing with here and I realize I am dealing with a kid who graduated from adult school. Then it all became clear. I can forgive your youth, misguided ego, lack of knowledge, or accepting being wrong, etc. We were all there once, so I have compassion. But someday you will understand that your ego is not as important as finding the truth. That in order to grow as a person, you need to bend and be open to new information and humanitarian ethics as it comes. That to dismiss all information and find fault with it because you want to be ‘right’, rather than actually listen to what is being said, will stunt your development as a person. People will have more respect for you if you admit you are wrong at times, or that perhaps you need to do more research. I have proven, regardless of what you say, that the issues with fluoride are too large, to expensive, affect too many people to be an adequate health procedure and that testing oneself is the surest way to find out if we are overfluoridated. It is a pity you put so much effort in being stubborn to the point of refusing to finding out the truth for yourself. You would rather attack my intelligence, call me a liar, and not test yourself, than to admit there are holes in your ‘ironclad’ belief system. You don’t want to admit that sealants are less expensive, and hurt less people, that WE CAN HAVE A CHOICE to choose to do fluoride on our own, that there is no reason to be forced to do this. A dictatorship is making people ingest things they do not want and being forced to pay for it when voters didn’t vote on it. The strange fact that you cannot see how wrong this is when you are a vegan and want to choose your own food, is a hypocrisy that I again attribute to your age and naivety. I wish you luck though. I think with the right seasoning, time and growth, that you have the potential to be a debater for the greater good of people if you choose that route, which I hope you do. However, there is no debating with someone who cannot admit they are wrong or concede/bend a little. I did it in places throughout this post, but it was not reciprocated. This belief of yours has mutated into a religion, because no matter how ridiculous it is, it is engrained in your character so much that you refuse to see there may be a problem with it. So I end my portion of the debate here so I can do other things. I hope you can try to be good and compassionate towards the world and other’s experiences and health challenges.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      So I wanted to know whom I was dealing with here and I realize I am dealing with a kid who graduated from adult school. Then it all became clear

      You can Google-sleuth too…how nice. So what, it doesn’t address and of the data presented.

      That to dismiss all information and find fault with it because you want to be ‘right’, rather than actually listen to what is being said, will stunt your development as a person.

      I would advise you to take this to heart yourself, I’m quite open to looking at the world with critical thinking.

      You don’t want to admit that sealants are less expensive

      Once again, sealants and use of dental fluoride and-or fluoridation are not mutual exclusive. While I personally agree that using a sealant is a safe preventative dental intervention, there are many on the medical fringe promoting fear of them, largely due to BPA and other unstated toxins so you may not find the argument as acceptable even among many anti-fluoridationists.

      Will sealants replace fluoride for cavity protection?

      No. Fluorides, such as those used in toothpaste, mouth rinse, and community water supplies also help to prevent decay, but in a different way. Sealants keep germs and food particles out of the grooves by covering them with a safe plastic coating. Sealants and fluorides work together to prevent tooth decay.
      source: CDC

      And sealants simply are not cheaper they cost about $25 to $50 per tooth which if you are lucky enough to have all 32 teeth will cost between $800 & $1,600 for your full mouth and can last 5-10 years (source: CDC) making for a cost of somewhere between $80 per year on the extreme low end to $320 per year on the higher end. On the other hand fluoridation cost estimates vary but range from 25 cents per year per person (Pinellas County 2011) to about a dollar for smaller communities. When adjusted for labor and maintenance costs it ranges from 31 cents to $2.12 per person per year depending on different factors such as community size. When saved health care dollars are factored in, the cost is negative and represents a cost saving to the community.

      Just because corrective procedure for flurosis are expensive doesn’t not mean fluoridation actually causes people to seek out such treatments. Such treatments are primarily for case of moderate and severe fluorosis which are associated with sources other than or beyond community fluoridation. This seems to be a central stickign point. While yes, corrective procedures for fluorosis is expensive, community fluoridation is not causing people to seek out such treatment.

      Fluorosis studies indicated that fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. However, moderate and severe fluorosis remain at low levels and appear to be somewhat isolated except in cases where children are subject to drinking water above 2 mg/L. Figure 4-1 below, shows the plot of more than 94 prevalence estimates conducted over a period spanning half a century. Despite a wide range of methodologies, fluorosis indices, fluoride measurement methods and population characteristics, a clear trend is evident. In communities with water fluoride concentrations below 2 mg/L, the prevalence of severe fluorosis is close to zero. Lowering the fluoride level in adjusted water systems alone may not appreciably affect the prevalence of severe dental fluorosis.

      (source ADA)

      when you are a vegan and want to choose

      My veganism is based on valuing reducing suffering and promotion of social justice, not out of a personal need to pick and choose everything I eat. I’m quite able to accept exceptions to my veganism such as supporting vaccination programs (no vaccines are currently vegan). This is a case where I put aside my own concerns for the greater good of public health. Fluoridation is analogous.

      However, there is no debating with someone who cannot admit they are wrong or concede/bend a little.

      See the thing is I DID admit I was wrong about the fluroidation issue…years ago. I was raised in an anti-fluoride household, we had filters on everything, only drank distiller water, and only used only non-fluoridated, all natural toothpaste. I was taught the commonly cited claims and conspiracy theories against fluoride. I even continued the practice of avoiding fluoride as best I could when I moved out on my own. It was only after becoming interested in Skepticism through other topics like crytozoology and alternative medicine that I started to look into the belief I had just always taken for granted. I did some more research and then switched to fluoridated toothpaste and stopped worrying about my water as much (once I check the levels with my water company). My own past experience with this issue is one reason I blog so much about it.
      Been there, done that.

      • Housewife Says:

        By your response, I can see at this point you are not in a place to comprehend the depth of my last post, or carry the ethics of humane maturity. In time you will understand what I wrote, as this issue will not go away and life has a way of being a great teacher. You will see what I mean later, but it is nothing that can be explained to you while you are in this state. It is something you will have to discover for yourself, over time.

        I got an email from my friend who sent this link where he got his tester. I haven’t checked it out myself, but as promised, here is where you can find it, http://beta.globalspec.com/SpecSearch/SearchForm/sensors_transducers_detectors/analytical_sensors/ion_selective_electrodes Good luck with your quest. You are lucky that your parents brought you up that way w/out fluoride. They are smart people :). I am done posting here.

  4. Drinking water makes you stupid « The Water Inspector Says:

    […] https://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/27/science-by-press-release-fluoride-iq/ https://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/05/fluoride-the-brain-the-china-studies/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Tagged Drinking water, Fluoride, Water fluoridation […]

  5. Dental Fluorosis « Skeptical Vegan Says:

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

  6. skepticalvegan Says:

    Ive already addressed the issues raised on the pineal gland in previous responses to you. How about you address the information already presented, make an original argument and stop spamming.

  7. michael Says:

    spamming??
    It’s All about ‘energy’ ..there’s nothing here but 3D science (I believe science has proven at least 5dims.) ..nothing here regarding Quantum levels or metaPyshics…myoptic…It Is Not Possible fluoride is a clean/hi energy kind of vib…Ever heard of Intuitive Intelligence SV?..it exists – & perhaps yours has been shut-off..so: stfu- please

    • gopiballava Says:

      @michael: Is English your native language? I’m trying to parse what you wrote but it’s not easy.

      There’s nothing in this post about quantum mechanics because there is no evidence that any form of quantum theory is needed to understand the effect of fluoride on the body.

      If you do have evidence that quantum mechanics in some form is relevant, I’d like to see it. Including the math. Feynman diagrams would be nice if they’re relevant.

  8. mb baker Says:

    A: No…(& i spent @3min w/it prob) The Point. (between the lines for you- seems ) there’s probably many dimensions ( i like the 23-core dim. theory & All Linked ! ) seems science by it’s very nature- will never have all the answers…your looking for.. ( Or should i write with a more Inquisitive tone? )

    it’s nice to have a place you can control – isn’t it ?..power to ya..
    sadly you’ll be arquing till your dieing breath…’anti’ conclusions will always be flawed in your mind.

    Till then maybe something of acutal benefit for you (foods for mental ) http://www.darkzess.com/2012/10/double-your-brain-power-with-excelerol/

    no hard feelings – May You Fare Well

  9. mb baker Says:

    aaaauuuuuuggg! ” you’re looking for “

  10. Just Say No to Fluoridation Chemophobia! | Skeptic in a Foxhole Says:

    […] leaflet promotes the baseless idea that fluoride lowers IQ (As someone who lived the majority of his life in a fluoridated city, I take that as a personal […]

  11. Plaredes Says:

    I must concur with Housewife here. Although ‘skepticalvegan’ you are capable of making some good points, I can only endure so much of your ironclad, smug belief in the veracity of your pronouncements, after which I start to turn off. Any view that runs counter to your own is immediately rejected. It reminds me of the father telling his son, “You’d better hurry up and finish your university course while you still know everything.” The fact is nobody can satisfactorily defend a ‘one dosage fits all’ model of pharmacology. It flies in the face of all other accepted practices of pharmacology. Is it reasonable to expect that the dosage of fluoride via the water supply should be the same for a small baby as for a full-grown adult, the same for women as for men, the same for the sick as well as the healthy. This is not supported by any recognized practices and as such, on this point alone, fluoridation of the water supply should cease immediately. It is extremely risky and highly undemocratic.

    • gopiballava Says:

      @Plaredes:
      “Any view that runs counter to your own is immediately rejected”
      I think that is more a reflection of the quality of most of the commenters. Most of the disagreements I’ve seen here are ones that I’ve also read about before. I reject them quickly because I’ve already heard, thought about, and rejected them.

      “Is it reasonable to expect that the dosage of fluoride via the water supply should be the same for a small baby as for a full-grown adult, the same for women as for men, the same for the sick as well as the healthy.”

      Are you aware that there’s a lot of literature on this topic, working on determining an appropriate fluoride level for water taking these things into account?

      The lack of any fluoride intake quantities in your post makes me suspect that you haven’t dug deep enough to calculate them. Am I correct? If I am correct and you haven’t come up with specific dosages and populations that you think are going to have problems, then you’re doing exactly what you accuse SV of doing. You’ve dismissed the work of medical professionals and epidemiologists, arguing that it’s *impossible* for them to have done what they claim to have done *without knowing what they claim*.

      The basic premise: that an optimal dose would be different for different groups is undoubtedly true. But your implication – that the doses received by people right now are far enough away from optimal to be unhelpful or dangerous – are not claims supported by the evidence.

      If you think that there is a group who are not getting enough or who are getting too much fluoride, break out the numbers, tell me the dosages that this group is getting.

      “It is extremely risky and highly undemocratic.”

      I’m pretty sure it is democratic. The majority elects representatives, the representatives do things, if you don’t like what they do then you elect representatives who promise what you want.

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: