Can we have a civilized talk about the U.S. water fluoridation industry?

[JackRiddler]

Fluoridation of drinking water is not practiced in any of the world’s industrially developed countries outside the “Anglosphere” of the United States, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as about half of Canada and parts of the UK.

In matters of environmental issues as well as dental health, my default position is to accept the word of scientists, doctors and trained technicians and experts. In this case, for various reasons, I happen to prefer the word of the scientists and experts guiding policy in most of the industrial countries outside the United States.

(Necessary digression: NO! I don’t believe water fluoridation is a communist plot to poison our bodily fluids, or to prevent us from having dreams. In addressing the issue of the fluoridation industry I prefer to argue from evidence, and I haven’t seen evidence for any of that.)

The following chart shows tooth decay trends for “unfluoridated” and “fluoridated” nations since the 1960s, based on the United Nations World Health Organization country index for “DMFT” – a measure of the rate of decayed, missing, or filled teeth among 12 year-olds:



For decades the DMFT index has declined radically in all developed countries. It is true, as fluoridation advocates hold, that the period of fluoridation in a few countries has coincided with a dramatic decline in tooth decay in the same countries. It has also coincided with equally dramatic declines in countries that do not fluoridate. Some countries, such as East Germany and other members of the East bloc, fluoridated and then stopped, but the decline in DMFT continued there as well.

This evidence serves to falsify the hypothesis that water fluoridation was a major factor in improved dental health, and suggests that improved dental health results from other economic factors or public health policies. Fluoridation advocates agree that the supposed dental benefits come only from topical application, which almost everyone in industrial nations, including most of the poorest of children, already perform every day with a toothbrush and a tube.

The fluoride added to drinking water is a by-product of the production of fertilizers and refined aluminum, among other goods, and is classified as a contaminant by the EPA. The producers of fluoride wastes do not pay the full price for the cost of disposing of their pollutants, however. Instead, they are paid untold millions of taxpayer dollars by thousands of communities that then dump fluoride into our drinking water.

Best known among these producers is ALCOA, which during the period before and after the Second World War played the pivotal role (along with the Mellon fortune) in selling fluoridation as a practice that benefits public health. By the 1960s, the John Birch Society, also funded by big right-wing money (the Kochs, in fact), declared fluoridation to be a communist plot, as a consequence helping to discredit any discussion of the issue among reasonable, non-paranoid liberals.

So yes, I do believe that fluoridation of drinking water in the United States stands as an example of governments putting private corporate profits before the interests and rights of the public. It's hard to quantify all the different municipal funds going into the practice (and municipalities tend to obscure by offering statistics on the supposed savings due to the benefits), but it is likely in the low hundreds of millions of dollars per year, about a dollar per capita. I say we save all that public money and put it into programs for children in poverty.

Discuss.

(PS - In reviewing the above, I ran across this link to a 1999 statement in which the employee union local of the EPA headquarters took a stand against fluoridation policy. Remember when that was on the news? Ha ha. http://sdsdw.org/fluoride-facts/why-epa-union-opposes-fluoridation/)

[marions ghost]

1. I wish

people were willing to talk about this at all.

Thanks for this information. We need to stop fluoridating water. Just as we need to stop using so many agricultural chemicals.

[JackRiddler]

2. Well, this is a start.

At least this first reply isn't the nonsense one frequently sees. There was an article on Jacobin about scientism. It misunderstood what the word actually means, but took it simply as the abuse of science as corporate PR, the distortions that come in through funding by industries, the political considerations, etc. He focused on how Big Ag distorts science (and its presentation) to allay concerns about GMOs. And even this author felt compelled to apply a little preemptive immunization against critics by repeating at the start that he ain't no crazy who thinks fluoridation is bad.

Cliches about anti-fluoridation advocates are embedded in our culture: General Jack D. Ripper, from the Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove, went mad with paranoia about Communists attacking his “precious bodily fluids” via water fluoridation. This fictional character is surely still far better known than the many environmental scientists and medical professionals, even the dozen Nobel Prize winners like the Swedish pharmacologist Arvid Carlsson, who have spoken out against fluoridation.

Having this kind of John Birch-style wing presenting everything capitalist as "communist" is a very useful way to taint and confuse discussion of a lot of issues, of course.

[marions ghost]

3. Water

---so basic. People don't want to face the fact that it might not be so good for you. I couldn't agree more that we are dealing with the abuse of science, with regard to fluoridation and GMOs.

Understandable that people would ignore this--typical in these times when we have to worry about everything from climate change, to the NSA, to drones, to the bees, to kids getting shot at school, to the healthcare nightmare, to food sources, not to mention the massive draining of the middle class financially, etc etc .....

It's just one more corporate invasion of our lives without our consent (similar to GMO in that).

[alarimer]

4. Antifluoridation crankery is like global warming denialism.

It flies in the face of actual science.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/

The turning point in terms of evidence came with the publication of a study in 1950 – Dr. H. Trendley Dean, head of the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health published the results of a study in Grand Rapids, Michigan in which fluoride was added to the drinking water of one community and not another. The study revealed a 50% decrease in dental cavities in the fluoridated community compared to the control. This and other evidence led to the recommendation to adjust the fluoride levels of local water supplies to about 1 mg/L (or 1 part per million, ppm). Some communities have natural levels of fluoride in the water at higher levels, and these are often reduced. The decision on whether and how to adjust fluoride is made at the municipal and local governmental level – not the Federal level. Therefore, some communities add fluoride while others do not.

Immediately after the recommendation was made and some communities started adding fluoride, the antifluoridation movement started. The primary motivation seems to be objecting to the imposition on personal freedom, seeing fluoridation as involuntary medication. Groups that oppose fluoridation, however, are typically not content to make the freedom argument, but rather also distort the evidence to argue that fluoridation is not safe or effective, despite the actual evidence. At the fringe there are also those who believe that the fluoridation of water is part of a dark government conspiracy to make us all into mindless slaves. (These conspiracy theories were famously lampooned in the brilliant movie Dr. Stranglove, when the character General Jack Ripper talks about the violation of his “precious bodily fluids.”)

The last 50 years of scientific research has only confirmed the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. A 2008 systematic review of this research concluded:

Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. It is recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6-1.1 mg/l, depending on the climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis.

For further background see the policy statement on fluoridation by the Institute for Science in Medicine (of which I and other SBM authors are members).

[JackRiddler]

5. 1) Please address the DMFT country comparison.

Data accumulated over 50 years in many countries worldwide may have more to say than a short-term study of one community conducted in 1950. (Really? This issue was settled in 1950?)

2) Please acknowledge there is no fluoridation in the industrial countries outside the Anglosphere, and yet they show the same long-term trends in DMFT. Please acknowledge the scientific and policy consensus outside the United States today finds that fluoridation has no significant effects on dental health. Please acknowledge there is a world outside the United States and a debate beyond that of your provincial framing, in which your claims of "science" need only confront those of the John Birch society.

3) Please show evidence you have read the OP and are addressing the arguments and claims made therein.

Can we have a civilized discussion about this? Apparently difficult for you:

- Immediate namecalling and abuse of terms like "science," expecting this works like a Pavlovian dog-whistle.

- No response to OP, copy-paste from an advocacy site that in content has nothing to say on the issues treated in the OP.

- Attack on a strawman which the OP already mentions and refutes.

- Avoidance of politics and history.

[alarimer]

52. I won't because it's bullshit.

It is a conspiracy theory with no basis in science or fact, and, so, not worth addressing.

[JackRiddler]

53. The DMFT data are a "conspiracy theory," you say?

Apparently it is important enough to you to keep trying to trash discussion with dog-whistle terms.

Please address the DMFT country comparison.

[HuckleB]

25. That piece really says it all.

I'm a bit astounded to see this type of conspiracy theory stuff at DU.

[alarimer]

54. I'm not.

Plenty of people on the left are just as gullible as those on the right. The difference is that left-wing anti-science tends to be around GMOs, vaccines (although that crosses all political boundaries), organic and "natural" foods and homeopathy.

I guess I'm conflating anti-science with conspiracy theories, but it is all about weighing evidence. And the evidence against fluoridation is small. Most of the fear-mongering goes along with other types of anti-government conspiracies as well.

[NuclearDem]

6. I didn't know Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Malaysia, and Israel were Anglosphere.

[JackRiddler]

13. They're not OECD.

The OP refers to and uses long-term data from the conventional understanding of "the world’s industrially developed countries." Sorry about the Eurocentrism. I'll concede some of the ones you mention can be included in the industrially developed category.

You don't source this map, by the way. It's dodgy, for example look up France. Should be in white, presented as a light pink. Very dodgy.

Fluoridated salt is available in France,[26] and 3% of the population uses naturally fluoridated water,[35] but the water is not artificially fluoridated.[35][36]

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

Check the citations before you complain about wikipedia. France does not fluoridate.

[NuclearDem]

17. Map comes from Wikipedia as well.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

And yes, I know it accounts for artificial and natural flouridation. Hence France, China, and other countries that don't have flouridation programs.

And yes, I probably should have mentioned that. The map is misleading without it.

[JackRiddler]

22. France = 3% natural fluoridation.

Why doesn't this country engage in artificial fluoridation? Are they anti-science over there? Are their teeth falling out?

[Brother Buzz]

7. You can't discuss water fluoridation without considering precious bodily fluids

[JackRiddler]

9. Apparently not for you.

[Brother Buzz]

12. Damned square

[Dr. Strange]

80. Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is General Discussion!

[Brother Buzz]

81. !

[longship]

85. I've never seen such behavior in General Discussion.

[JackRiddler]

88. Now THAT...

is appreciated. From the heart. Of the war room.

[closeupready]

8. Are you serious? This is DU. If you need to be informed, 'no',

then I wish you well on your 'if you build it, they will come' attempt at having a civilized talk about an anti-establishment topic, kid. Cheers.

[JackRiddler]

10. You seem civilized about this.

It's a start.

[closeupready]

11. I subscribe to the "always question authority" school of thought.

No matter how crazy, no matter how out there, one should be at least prepared to hear out anyone and everyone (within reason) with something to say, and if you seek to engage, do so in good faith and rationally. And conversely, one should be prepared to challenge any and every authority, at any time. DU used to be more like that, but has gravitated towards a more pro-establishment, authoritarian tone.

Peace.

[Chathamization]

14. A light reading suggests that water fluoridation is most useful for people who don’t get other forms

of fluoride treatment (infrequent brushing, not visiting the dentist). As such, I’d be disinclined to stop the fluoridation. But it would be nice to see a good cost/benefit analysis.

[JackRiddler]

16. Sounds like an argument for targeted health measures.

Rather than for paying ALCOA, effectively, to dump pollutants in drinking water, don't you think?

A good cost/benefit analysis is something you can do with types of widgets to be supplied to a factory, not with what is effectively the influence of all possible variables on all possible people. The pretense that 1 ppm fluoride is separable as a factor is inherently questionable science. The dental health effects have only ever been found to be moderately indicated at best (as in the York study), all other possible health effects can't even be framed or conceptualized let alone measured. There simply is not a double-blind possibility for studying this under control. The smaller the sample size in epidemiological studies allowing the appearance of greater control, the more likely you'll get some significant results that are nevertheless not true or transferable to other cases. (Ioannides covers this epistemological stuff very well, by the way, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16014596) The doubt is sufficient to cause most scientifically minded countries to leave it out as a public policy measure. I really will trust Germany on this. I think the DMFT data really speak to the idea that direct, targeted practices and just plain development have worked spectacularly well in the long run, without need of some kind of faith-based shotgunning of the whole population on the basis of well we think it probably does help teeth for poor children who don't brush. (Get them brushes! Put money in people's pockets! Get more dentists in poor areas! Promote development & education! Enough of the centralized magic bullet.)

[Chathamization]

18. Ideally? Perhaps. But I suspect that poor access to healthcare in the US might make broader efforts

like this particularly important. It also seems to be relatively cheap with no adverse side effects, so seems like something that’s worth doing. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other things that we should be doing that would probably have a greater impact on oral health. But I don’t see that as a reason to stop doing something that’s effective (even if the degree of effectiveness is disputable).

[JackRiddler]

32. It's totemic.

We spool some fluorides into the water, cite an interpretative study showing this correlates with a difference almost within the error margin and no way to separate out the factors and prove direct effects, and praise ourselves for having done something for poor children! Meanwhile non-fluoridation countries have the same levels of dental health or better.

There are many "other things we should be doing that would probably have a greater impact," as you say. But oh no, the poor children would actually be visible as beneficiaries, can't have that in an America crazed with preventing the poor from receiving benefits no matter how small. Easier to add fluoride, feel good. Done. "Realism."

At best it's poorly spent money, and why? Because a corporate cartel benefits. Pollutants are redefined as medicine they can sell to cities.

[SidDithers]

15. Water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century...

according to the CDC.

The American Dental Association and the Canadian Dental Association both support community water fluoridation.

Those who oppose community water fluoridation are about on the same level as anti-vaxxers and climate-deniers.

And your use of the phrase "water fluoridation industry" tells us exactly where you're coming from. It's reminiscent of the medical quacks who claim the "cancer industry" is hiding a cure for cancer.

Sid

[HuckleB]

19. Exactly.

[REP]

23. It's difficult to discuss because of the cray cray

And having an opinion may get me moved into the cray cray column, but hey, nothing new there

I'm more concerned with replacing the industrial waste used for fluoridation with naturally-occurring fluoride than removing fluoride from the water supply; a look at the data from places with naturally-fluoridated water is pretty convincing (for me, at least). I don't distrust fluoridation of water; I distrust the suppliers of what's being used to fluoridate water. What's being used is industrial waste, and a better source surely could be found. The idea itself of fluoridating water is great; there are enough people (and even adults can benefit from fluoride treatments) with limited to no access to dental care or even regular toothbrushing that this simple idea can help prevent suffering and even deaths. It's the source of that fluoride that troubles me.

And I'll stop calling you Shirley.

[HuckleB]

29. The "industrial waste" argument is a classic anti-fluoride trope.

This gets to the bottom of the confusion the antis try to foment:
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm

-------------------------

Another bit from: https://www.thelundreport.org/content/distorted-science-fluoridation

"Another junk science claim is that fluoride is a by-product of the fertilizer industry. This is blatantly untrue. Fluoride is a mineral found naturally in nearly all water sources. Water fluoridation is the practice of adjusting the concentration of fluoride up or down to the optimal level (0.7 ppm) shown to prevent tooth decay. Fluoride is extracted from phosphorite rock, which is also a source for phosphoric acid, a common ingredient in soda pop, and phosphate, which is later used in fertilizers. Fluoride does not come from fertilizer 11. It is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and must meet strict quality standards that assure the public’s safety."

---------------------------

And one other important factor from: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3805/is-fluoride-in-water-an-industry-waste-product

"the reagents used are irrelevant, as the flouride is no longer attached to the rest of the compound once it is in solution. [Reference: Year 11 high school Chemistry class]"

[REP]

31. It's been a while, but I don't recall hearing the fertilizer source

Naturally-occurring fluoride in water is calcium fluoride; what's added to water is either hexafluorosilicic acid or salt sodium hexafluorosilicate.

As I said, the idea behind water fluoridation is a great one. Anything so simple that can prevent so much suffering is fantastic. Nothing against the practice.

[csziggy]

40. Fluoride is processed from the byproducts of phosphate mines

Unfortunately, the expert who I would have asked about this, my father, has passed away. He was a phosphate mining engineer as was his father, and lived his entire life around the industry. His father's name is on several patents involving the processing of phosphate and my Dad's name is on one which refined the process.

At one point my father obtained a piece of partially mined land in Polk County not far off Hwy 60. He thought it would be a good investment and someday be valuable for development. Since he already owned a couple of orange groves, he thought he'd plant trees on the land as income in the meantime. He bought several small trees ans set the pots out on the land until he got a chance to plant them.

A week later he went out to plant the trees and they were all dead. He took leaves and other samples to the county agent for testing. They were extremely high in fluoride. It seems the fluoride plant across the road was releasing a great deal of the stuff into the atmosphere. Dad was told citrus trees or any crop plants would not survive. He asked about cattle or horses and was told the levels in the grass and soil were too toxic for any grazing animal to survive.

Between 1953 and 1964, however, an estimated 150,000 acres of cattle land were abandoned, and 25,000 acres of citrus groves in the county were damaged. Truck crops were lost, and the commercial gladiolus industry in an adjacent county was blighted. In the seven-year period between 1953 and 1960, the cattle population of Polk County dropped 30,000 head.

“Around 1953 we noticed a change in our cattle. They failed to fleshen as they normally did. We put them in our best pastures and used all known methods to fatten. Worming, mineral drenches, changing pastures did not improve the condition. We watched our cattle become gaunt and starved, their legs became deformed; they lost their teeth. Reproduction fell off and when a cow did have a calf, it was also affected by this malady or was a stillborn.” Thus did a former president of the Polk County Cattlemen’s Association describe the onset of a condition in his cattle that was diagnosed by veterinarians as mass fluoride poisoning. The source of this fluoride poisoning was traced to gas and dust emissions spread by wind from the stacks of the many phosphate-processing plants near the grazing lands and citrus groves.
http://fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate02/

Dad was stuck with paying taxes on a piece of land he could not make any money on and could not sell.

This was nearly fifty years ago - it was before the Clean Air Act.

Fluorine from the phosphate industry is one example. In the late 1960s the state of Florida passed laws restricting air emissions in part because fluorine from the phosphate industry had begun to harm citrus trees and there were cases of fluorosis in cattle. Since that time phosphate companies have improved the techniques they use to remove contaminants before they are released into the air - such as scrubbing the stacks that processing plants use to release steam. Fluoride is scrubbed from the stack and is either recovered to make fluosilicic acid, which can be sold for uses such as water fluoridation, or is sent to the cooling pond where losses to the air are within regulatory limits.
http://www.fipr.state.fl.us/research-area-public-health.htm

[HuckleB]

43. I'm not sure why you responded.

The reality is stated clearly in my post. Posting bad information from anti-fluoride conspiracy sites does not change that.

[csziggy]

46. I posted facts as I know them from growing up with phosphate experts

And from personal knowledge. The excerpts I posted are confirmation of my personal knowledge. My knowledge may be anecdotal but it is true.

At the time the standards were passed by Florida and then by the federal government, they fought them tooth and nail. I remember those times in the late 60s and early 70s well - it seriously affected my father's income since the phosphate industry cut back production as they had to implement the new requirements.

It's laughable that you lump the Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute which was the sourse for my second excerpt with "anti-fluoride conspiracy sites." They are pro-industry and would not laud the changes in air standards as followed by the industry unless it was in the best interests of the chemical companies. They now brag about those changes as if they were in favor of the clean air requirements only because they see that it is better PR.

[HuckleB]

47. Uh, you posted stuff from conspiracy sites, while ignoring the content of my post.

I'm not sure why you think your claims are true, when you can't support them, and when the are in opposition to the actual evidence base.

[csziggy]

49. Here you go - the Merck Manual is hardly a conspirarcy site

Overview of Fluoride Poisoning
(Fluorosis)

Fluoride exposure from the environment has been associated with natural contamination of rock, soil, and water or from industrial waste or smelting processes. Fluoride compounds have been added to human water supplies at concentrations of ~1 mg/kg to reduce dental caries. This recommendation is not universally accepted. Both acute and chronic toxicoses are reported with fluoride ingestion. Maximum tolerance levels in animal feeds range from ~20–50 mg/kg (dry weight) in most species. In poultry, as much as 200 mg/kg can be tolerated. These tolerances may vary depending on the age, duration of exposure, and nutritional status. Animals with a long, productive life span such as dairy cattle are more susceptible.
Etiology and Pathogenesis

Fluorides are found naturally in rock phosphates and limestone. Industrial wastes associated with fertilizer and mineral supplement production are frequent sources of fluoride exposure. Metal ores associated with steel and aluminum processing are common industrial sources. Fluoride dusts dispersed downwind from these sources may contaminate forage crops for many kilometers. Forage crops grown on contaminated soil may contain increased concentrations of fluoride associated with physical contamination with soil particulates. There is minimal direct uptake of fluoride by the plant. With the potential of fluoride contamination in many feed and water sources, it is recommended that feed-grade phosphates contain <1% fluoride. Acute fluoride exposure at high concentrations will cause corrosive damage to tissues. In contrast, chronic exposure, which is seen more frequently, causes delayed or impaired mineralization of bones and teeth. The solubility of fluoride correlates generally with the degree of toxicity. Fluoride is known to interact with various elements, including aluminum, calcium, phosphorus, and iodine. Fluoride is a cellular poison that interferes with the metabolism of essential metals such as magnesium, manganese, iron, copper, and zinc. Because bacterial metabolism may be affected in a similar manner, this attribute accounts for the use of fluoride in dental hygiene products. Soluble fluoride is rapidly absorbed; ~50% is excreted by glomerular filtration. More than 95% of the fluoride that is retained is deposited in the bones and teeth, forming hydroxyapatite after the interference with calcium metabolism and replacement of hydroxyl ions. At low levels of fluoride exposure, the solubility of the enamel is reduced, resulting in protection. At higher levels of exposure, the enamel becomes dense and brittle. If exposure occurs during pregnancy, developing bones and teeth are severely affected. Faulty, irregular mineralization of the matrix associated with altered ameloblastic, odontoblastic, or osteoblastic activity ultimately results in poor enamel formation, exostosis, sclerosis, and osteoporosis.
http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/toxicology/fluoride_poisoning/overview_of_fluoride_poisoning.html

That supports the statements I made about the advice my father was given against pasturing livestock across from a fluoride plant.

I made no CT statements about the use of fluoride in drinking water. As someone who grew up with fluoride in my drinking water as well as excessive amounts of fluorine in the local atmosphere, I can say that neither affected me adversely, though the fluoride in the drinking water and toothpaste that I used did not help my teeth to resist cavities.

Now, exactly what have I stated can you prove is not a fact?

[HuckleB]

57. The dose makes the poison.

You seem to think that you can just slap any old thing up there and it supports your position, no matter how unconnected it is.

This is basic science. Basic chemistry.

Please don't play those games.

Thank you.

[csziggy]

69. When did I claim otherwise?

My original comments were on the links between fluoride and the fertilizer industry. They are linked and denials of that are delusional.

You are trying to make me out to be a conspiracy theorist and calling me a liar.

You are proving the point that an civilized talk about fluoridation is not possible. Good bye.

[HuckleB]

72. When did you not claim otherwise?

Have you read your posts? WOW!

[WCLinolVir]

108. THE REALITY, not to be confused with actual fact which may vary.

[HuckleB]

110. Are you saying actual facts support anti-fluoridationists?

[wildbilln864]

84. where Sid, do they get the flouride that's put in the water?

[taught_me_patience]

20. I don't think so

Anti-fluoriders are almost as zealous as anti-vaxxers even in the face of repeated studies that show fluoride to be safe.

[JackRiddler]

21. Sigh.

Don't read the OP, title only, 1 ppm of it will burn your eyes!

[REP]

24. If I read it right, it's not anti-fluoride; it's concern about the source of that fluoride

I think fluoridation is a great idea. I think that source of the fluoride is not so great.

[HuckleB]

26. Very true.

They use the same convoluted readings of the science of the matter to support their conspiracies. A lack of understanding of chemistry makes them feel like they know what they're talking about, when they haven't the slightest clue. It's downright scary.

[procon]

27. Do the countries that do not have fluoridation plans

include dental care in their national healthcare programs?

[JackRiddler]

30. That tends to be the case, yes.

And I think it's the central point. Scattershot "treatment" of everyone based on weak statistical conclusions, vs. actual direct treatment of problems individually that self-evidently works. (And denial of the industrial background to the whole thing, the corporate interest and history.)

[ZombieHorde]

28. I've seen studies that go both ways,

but I have never really cared enough about the subject to really look into it. I don't have enough information on the subject to form an opinion.

[NCTraveler]

90. This really angers me.

Please formulate an opinion immediately. This is nonsense on your part.

[ZombieHorde]

97. Ha! nt

[bhikkhu]

33. I've always been pro-fluoridation

It seems a no-brainer to me. Its on par with pro-clean-drinking water, or supporting health standards for the food industry. Of course, people can take responsibility for their own food-poisoning and cholera outbreaks and so forth, but I appreciate that the government helps keep that sort of thing to a minimum.

[JackRiddler]

41. Fluoridation is not a water treatment.

You're thinking of chlorination. That's what kills germs, prevents cholera, etc. Fluoridation has no claimed impact other than the supposed benefits to dental health. It is not a water treatment (to make water safe). It is a medical treatment. Your comparisons do not apply.

[bhikkhu]

48. Fluoride helps to prevent tooth decay

Adding a bit to the water supply is one of the best and most effective public health ideas that's come along.

[JackRiddler]

50. You are mistaken.

[HuckleB]

68. Yes. Indeed. But you'll never convince an anti-fluoridationist.

[bhikkhu]

75. Apparently its another massive conspiracy...

I suppose I could read up on it, but I'm afraid that would just be depressing. I'll just stick with my fluoride and my good teeth, and let my kids keep their good teeth as well.

[HuckleB]

77. But, but, but...

You and your dang evidence!!!!

[JackRiddler]

82. Those poor toothless Germans!

And French, and Scandinavians...

[bhikkhu]

86. We have pretty thorough health information for most of the countries in question

Is there a chart that shows any negative impacts on health for the countries that adopted fluoridated water, compared to those that did not?

[JackRiddler]

89. The pretense that 1 ppm fluoride is separable as a factor...

(sorry, I'll have to repeat from elsewhere)

...is inherently questionable science. The dental health effects have only ever been found to be moderately indicated at best (as in the York university meta-study), all other possible health effects can't even be framed or conceptualized let alone measured to a standard we can call proof. There simply is not a double-blind possibility for studying this under control.

The smaller the sample size in epidemiological studies allowing the appearance of greater control, the more likely you'll get some significant results that are nevertheless not true or transferable to other cases. (Ioannides covers this epistemological stuff very well, by the way, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16014596)

The doubt is sufficient to cause most scientifically minded countries to leave it out as a public policy measure. The question cannot be, "why not" when the dental health argument is so dubious. I really will trust Germany on this. I think the DMFT data really speak to the idea that direct, targeted practices and just plain development have worked spectacularly well in the long run, without need of some kind of faith-based shotgunning of the whole population on the basis of well we think it probably does help teeth for poor children who don't brush.

(Get them brushes! Put money in people's pockets! Get more dentists in poor areas! Promote development & education! Enough of the centralized magic bullet religion that distracts from real solutions...)

[WCLinolVir]

112. Cholera outbreak? Really?

Talk about a red herring. And I would address your comment about the govt. keeping tabs on health standards in general, especially when it comes to the FDA, but your post is, IMHO, ludicrous.

[bhikkhu]

121. That's pne thing we don't have to worry about, because of government water standards

I thought it was at least somewhat relevant, as the government manages our water supplies, and fluoridation is added to those water supplies in many places.

[JackRiddler]

128. Fluoride has nothing to do with preventing water-borne diseases.

[bhikkhu]

129. Well understood

but water quality is a responsibility the government has managed well for the sake of public health. Fluoridated water is a similar issue, managed for the sake of dental health. Same medium, similar good intentions.

Its hard to look at the statistics and say that's failed, though I did follow through on some of your links, and I do see how the science could be questioned. But lacking indications of harmful side-effects, its hard for me to get very concerned.

[Holly_Hobby]

34. My doctor had this book laying on his desk the last time I was there

He's an MD Internist. I asked him about it, he told me to get a copy and read it.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Fluoride-Hazardous-Drinking/dp/1603582878/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407797112&sr=1-3&keywords=flouride

[HuckleB]

35. Even an MD can fall for pseudoscience.

That doesn't mean it's worth the time of day.

[Holly_Hobby]

36. Absolutely.

He just doesn't strike me as a nut case. He's always been a cautious kind of doctor. Probably concerned about lawsuits.

[JackRiddler]

39. There's no need to take that seriously, you know.

The argument seems to be that every credentialed expert who agrees with me is "science," everyone who doesn't is "pseudoscience," and no one uncredentialed is allowed to think anything since they're unqualifed. Therefore everyone must believe the guy who is most persistent in repeating "pseudoscience" as though it were a magic spell.

[HuckleB]

44. It's always hard to know.

Unfortunately, in the age of the Internet, bad information gets spread fast and wide, and people with a little bit of information think they understand the full story, and then advocate their position with most adamantly. Unfortunately, taking a position often means not wanting to get the fully story. We are a strange species.

[JackRiddler]

55. "In the age of Internet."

Because people were sooooo well-informed prior to the Internet! They always understood "the full story," they weren't adamant. (Actually, I think it's rock and roll music that really started the decline in the once-glorious American intellectual life.)

Of course, here, you have no "full story" to tell, which is why you resort to self-praising platitudes. You certainly won't address the issues, only attack the speaker.

[HuckleB]

58. Far fewer people were exposed to conspiracy BS.

Are you going to pretend that's not true?

[JackRiddler]

61. How old are you?

[HuckleB]

63. My age has nothing to do with anything related to this discussion.

And I'm old enough to know the games of pseudoscience fans.

[JackRiddler]

65. Because you don't seem to have any idea what people were like...

prior to 1994, when the Internet got big.

(Or pick your year for when the Internet began as a big cultural thing.)

Another myth you're spreading. That bad ideas were born with the democratization of the media. Before Internet, everyone was so much smarter and well-educated!

[HuckleB]

66. Ah, you've offered another baseless claim.

Cool.

[JackRiddler]

70. I think I've understood your formula.

It embarrasses me to be engaging with this, actually. Thanks.

[HuckleB]

71. Awwwwww.

That's so cute.

[JackRiddler]

38. Even easier for a persona on DU to spread bullshit.

So? You have to actually make a case for why this doctor (or Nobel Prize winner, or scientist) is wrong while another one is right. This rhetoric of yours should embarrass anyone who seriously believes in the tools of skepticism.

[HuckleB]

42. The consensus of evidence shows that fluoridation is safe and effective.

Why are you spreading misinformation to the contrary?

[JackRiddler]

51. The consensus of evidence as understood in most countries

is that fluoridation is not "effective" and probably not safe. The EPA itself classifies it as a pollutant.

Therefore countries that follow science-based policy, like Germany and France, do not practice it. Why are you so determined to spread misinformation?

[HuckleB]

56. Hogwash.

It's not ok to make stuff up. It's unethical. Sheesh.

[JackRiddler]

59. Thank you for kicking this important thread.

I'm not sure what you do is unethical, since I'm not clear on the mens rea, so to speak. Certainly you engage in a very ignorant and repetitive way. It should make you feel ashamed.

[HuckleB]

60. I understand that you think passing along bad information is important.

In terms of this thread, you might want to recognize that you've been debunked over and over again.

Thus, I will kick away!

[JackRiddler]

62. On this thread?

Almost nothing I said in the OP has even been addressed. Only the dog-whistle terms have been deployed ("pseudo-science," "conspiracy theory," "bodily fluids.&quot Shame on you.

[HuckleB]

64. It has, and it has.

I get that you want to pretend. I don't play pretend. Buck up, and show me you can be honest.

Can you?

[JackRiddler]

67. Your behavior is outrageously dishonest.

Your projection is epic.

Then again, you may be a relatively successful Turing test, given the complete lack of variety in things you say.

[HuckleB]

73. I'm not the one who is dishonest.

Try again.

Evidence matters. You can't support your claims on any matter, it seems. Why is that?

[SidDithers]

45. Yes. It's very easy for a person on DU to spread bullshit...nt

Sid

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. So glad I own a private well. -

I use prescription strength fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash for my teeth.

[laundry_queen]

74. Well

In my personal experience, fluoridation helps and is worth it.

My kids were all born in places that didn't have fluoridation here in Canada. They all had varying issues with decay. Until you've had to have your toddler put under a general anesthetic so that she can have teeth capped, removed, filled etc and then hold her when she wakes up screaming, with a bloody mouth and in pain, it's easy to discount a 'little bit of decay'. After my first daughter, I was absolutely fanatical with my next 3 children with brushing, early dentist appointments, we were seen by the local public health unit for fluoride varnish every 3 months and so on....none of it helped much. 3 out of the 4 were bad enough to need early dental surgery (one needed it twice) Every dentist appointment, there were more cavities. In between that, there were abscesses.

The dental bills were astronomical.

Then we moved to an area with fluoridation. Not. One. Single. Cavity. Since. In 4.5 years. The effect was so dramatic there is nothing else it could possibly be.

Since they broke their first tooth we did the topical fluoride, the brushing/flossing/rinsing. They didn't drink juice. We didn't 'do' sippy cups. They didn't eat much sugar. We even did the Xylitol gum recommended to us. None of it helped and the decay was ongoing until we moved. At first, the decay was blamed on my breastfeeding my toddlers...but the decay continued well after they were weaned, and some of my kids' teeth CAME IN with cavities. The dental nurse at the health unit said she'd never seen anything like it.

I get that what I experienced with my kids was anecdotal. I get that people think there are risks to fluoridation or that it's industrial waste. But if I had to do it over again, I'd have bought the fluoride and added it to their water myself.

[HuckleB]

79. And the scientific evidence supports your observations.

[laundry_queen]

83. That doesn't mean

it's not okay to question things, however. Sometimes there are just questions that science hasn't asked, and we need to ask them. I really wish you wouldn't go so over the top accusing posters of being anti-science. It doesn't bother me that people are questioning this, even with my experience with my children. Obviously, if there was ever a study that showed fluoridation risks to outweigh benefits I would have to re-evaluate my position. As of right now, there is no such study. Someone who has never experienced severe decay with their children might be more cautious about fluoridation that I am. And that's okay for them to look at the research out there. For someone who has never dealt with childhood decay, they may decide an obscure study about future safety of fluoride proves that we shouldn't fluoridate water. It's up to me to share my experience and tell them the harm lack of fluoridated water can do, in a respectful way.

I see it like when a child misbehaves. Some people want to punish and shame the child. I see it as a teachable moment that, if handled correctly, will have long lasting effects (not to say posters questioning is like misbehaving). Only you can decide how you post here on DU...but I will say your style has probably turned more people off than anything. You should harness the teachable moments. It was someone who was patient with me who helped me become left wing and see the error of my conservative ways. You can do the same and change many minds or you can continue and anger them instead. I'm glad you agree with me here, but I strongly dislike how you are treating others in the thread. Flies/vinegar/honey applies here.

[HuckleB]

87. Yes, questioning is good.

In this case, the claims in the OP has been explored ad nauseum, and this is a long-standing anti-fluoridation attack. It's aim is not to question, but to misinform and convince people to advocate against fluoridation.

I am all for questioning, but when the question is answered, the questioner ought to be able to acknowledge that, as well.

[JackRiddler]

92. The question is answered.

1) There is sufficient doubt of the dental health effects and these are acknowledged - even by advocates when they're being serious - as so moderate and undefinitive as to cause most countries where policy is driven by science (as in northern and central Europe) to avoid experimenting on the whole population by artificial fluoridation of drinking water. The bulk of science and health policy consensus outside the Anglosphere uncontroversially holds that "when in doubt, leave it out." (If you want to argue otherwise, show me the millions of toothless Germans.)

2) Fluoridation historically came into practice as the result of a PR campaign to rebrand an industrial pollutant as a health benefit, financed by ALCOA and the Mellon fortune.

I acknowledge that the question has been answered. You happen to acknowledge the wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

[HuckleB]

94. Repeating the same old anti-fluoride nonsense doesn't change reality.

Next time, try to be honest, please.

PS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025371076#top

[JackRiddler]

98. Why do you repeat the same old dishonest nonsense?

"Next time, try to be honest, please."

You could start by avoiding scare words and putting any content whatsoever in your canned posts. Yours is a shameful performance that reasonable people can see through. A losing tactic.

[HuckleB]

100. I've debunked your conspiracy theory.

And you want to pretend that there's no content in my posts.

So much for hoping that you might just challenge your preconceived notions.

When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/

[JackRiddler]

101. You live in an imaginary universe.

You have not addressed anything in this thread and provide only the self-justifications for an American policy.

Acknowledge the science-driven public health policy in Germany, France and Scandinavia, among other countries where artificial fluoridation is not practiced.

[HuckleB]

103. LOL!!!!!

Basic chemistry: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025365715#post29

[JackRiddler]

104. Thank you for kicking this important thread.

And revealing your inability to engage with arguments or to avoid ad hominem and Pavlovian styles of response.

Germany? France? Scandinavia? Hello?

[HuckleB]

106. I engaged. You didn't like the fact that your concerns were not valid.

I just linked to a piece that addresses all the usual anti-fluoride tropes, including the one you're trying to spread now.

And I have no problem kicking a thread that shows clearly that anti-fluoride arguments are baseless. I'm not sure why you would want to do that, however.

Later.

[JackRiddler]

130. +1

[sorcrow]

76. What about DMFT among older populations?

What about DMFT among 40 year olds? In other words, whose teeth survive into early(?) middle age, and what is their fluoridation status? I ask because I lived in japan, and it is not uncommon for 35 year olds there to have no teeth of their own.

Sorghum

[JackRiddler]

78. DMFT in Japan

Here are two WHO world maps for DMFT, at age 12 and 35. In both, Japan is in the same class as USA (in the "low" category for 12-year-olds and both "moderate" at age 35).

http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_figure6.pdf?ua=1

I found the exact numbers for 2001 in a report out of Hong Kong.

http://www.dh.gov.hk/english/pub_rec/pub_rec_lpoi/files/ohse8.pdf

Interestingly, Japanese DMFT at age 12 is 2.4 (high end of WHO's "low" category) compared to U.S. at 1.3 (low end of that category).

But at age 35 they're even, U.S. at 13.3 and Japan at 13.7! So I can't say why you know so many more toothless Japanese than Americans. (The U.S. distribution probably varies enormously by region. I can imagine it's worse in Texas than in New York, both fluoridating states.)

13! I have 2. Some of us are really lucky. I know lots of people in New York with many cavities, so personal experiences are probably not what we should go on.

Also, interesting, DMFT in all nations is converging:

http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_figure7.pdf?ua=1

Maybe I suck at this, having trouble finding recent data by country.

[FSogol]

91. Translation: Civilized discussion = a discussion where everyone agrees with Meeeeeee!

[JackRiddler]

93. Nope.

A discussion where it's not about meeeeeee at all, or yooooouuuuu, but about the points actually claimed, attempting to use logic and facts on either side of the question, and without drive-by ad hominem bullshit, importation of strawmen, Pavlovian name-calling, etc. Thanks for illustrating some of the latter.

[HuckleB]

95. Exactly! Please buy into a pet conspiracy theory!

Ugh.

[FSogol]

96. Just dust off an old conspiracy theory. Precious bodily fluids!

[JackRiddler]

99. At all costs, avoid mentioning Germany, France, Scandinavia...

etc. etc.

If you think rejection of water fluoridation is "conspiracy theory," you ought to complain to the EU countries, Japan, etc. etc. All of whom reject fluoridation and are in the same DMFT category as the U.S., according to the conspiracy theorists at WHO. While you're at it, go after 12 winners of science Nobel Prizes and the American Kidney Association.

[WCLinolVir]

102. Great topic. I do not drink tap water or use fluoride toothpaste.

I have MS and it has helped significantly reduce my brain fog. I read that Hitler used it to dumb down people. I do remember that the push for dental hygiene at school was also a factor for reduced dental problems.

[JackRiddler]

105. The Hitler thing is a myth.

It's the kind of thing the fake-skeptics love to see advanced, as there is no basis for it.

[HuckleB]

107. And there is no basis for any of the other anti-fluoride claims either.

[JackRiddler]

109. Sue today's Germans (and French etc.) for thinking otherwise.

[HuckleB]

111. You do realize that you are running through every anti-fluoride trope, right?

And you know that they're all easily recognized, right?

[WCLinolVir]

113. Harvard study citing potential for neurotoxicity for children.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

"Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S., said lead author Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH."

Why is that?? Oh wait, the govt. is keeping us safe? Just like the FDA.

[HuckleB]

114. Context is everything.

Antifluoridation Bad Science
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/

Does Fluoride Make Your Kids Dumb?
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/02/does_fluoride_lower_your_child_s_iq_dr_joseph_mercola_says_yes_on_the_huffington.html

Fluoridated Water Safe To Drink, Harmless To IQ; Will The Evidence Quiet Conspiracy Theorists?
http://www.medicaldaily.com/fluoridated-water-safe-drink-harmless-iq-will-evidence-quiet-conspiracy-theorists-284536

Any more anti-fluoride routines to throw on the fire?

[WCLinolVir]

115. Yeah-

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/ no actual studies.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/02/does_fluoride_lower_your_child_s_iq_dr_joseph_mercola_says_yes_on_the_huffington.html
no actual studies other than two which are about coal dust. And then this"There is, however, some evidence suggesting that we should take a closer look at fluoride’s effects on the brain, even at the moderate exposures to which some Americans are exposed." quote from the article.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/fluoridated-water-safe-drink-harmless-iq-will-evidence-quiet-conspiracy-theorists-284536- This one, they looked at 1000 people for one year!!! Ha ha ha. That's right, we don't get the "study" guidelines either. Talk about junk. No criteria, just surburban dwellers! For one year. 72-73. Quite a study.

[HuckleB]

116. I see that you failed to understand the reality.

You pushed a study that does not apply to water fluoridation at the levels used around the world. It was from a select population in China, where naturally occurring fluoride was extremely high. Oh, and if you think the study I noted is junk, well, you're saying that you won't accept good science unless it conforms to your preconceived outcomes. That is quite a confession.

BTW, you did note this part of the Harvard Study, right? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2012/07/Media-Statement_Fluoride-9-12-12-Revised2.pdf

And some more reality: http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2013/09/18/fluoridation-the-iq-myth/

[WCLinolVir]

119. Yes this is what you reference.

Statement on Fluoride Paper
September 11, 2012
-- When considering the risks and benefits of fluoride exposure, the level of intake needs to be
considered.
--Possible risks to brain development in children have been studied in China, but this possible hazard has
not received much, if any, consideration in the U.S.
--Our study summarized the findings of 27 studies on intelligence tests in fluoride-exposed children; 25
of the studies were carried out in China. On average, children with higher fluoride exposure showed
poorer performance on IQ tests. Fluoride released into the ground water in China in some cases greatly
exceeded levels that are typical in the U.S.
--In general, complete information was not available on these 27 studies, and some limitations were
identified.
--All but one of the 27 studies documented an IQ deficit associated with increased fluoride exposure.
--These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of
exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no
risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels
may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly
take into regard this possible hazard.
--Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author,
and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author.
And I do not see anything to counter, in the second reference, that we should be concerned about the fact that no studies have been done in the USA.
There are many factors that could account for increased iq scores from 1940s-1990s, which is what the author rests his case on.
Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests
"Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial"-
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=881&y=0&no=&content=true&page=4&css=print
Obviously this is personal for you. Good luck with a pi#@#ng contest.

[HuckleB]

120. I love it.

"Obviously, this is personal for you..." And the usual conspiracy theory routines never end.

You tried to push something that doesn't say what you want it to say. I showed the reality. Now try to acknowledge the reality. You can do it! I know you can!

[JackRiddler]

124. "water fluoridation levels at the levels used around the world."

Which is zero in most industrial (as well as other) nations, right? The ones with the same excellent DMFT trends as the industrial nations that do fluoridate, indicating fluoridation is not a factor in DMFT...

[HuckleB]

126. And yet another pointless response.

Do you have anything other than distractions to offer?

Your fear mongering has been debunked. Now, stop pretending otherwise.

[JackRiddler]

127. Thank you for kicking this important thread.

Even when you have nothing whatsoever to say.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

122. What other chemicals can we add to the water to help out?

Granted... impossible to control for dosage with any of this, but certainly fluoride cant be the only thing we should be adding right?

[JackRiddler]

125. Do you mean for teeth, or for water-borne diseases?

For the latter, water in industrial nations is treated in various ways, including with chloride, and everything indicates it works.

For the teeth, topical application by way of a brush and a tube seems to work really damned well. Education and targeted public health measures would seem to be effective means, compared to pretending that general fluoridation is a magic bullet...

[TampaAnimusVortex]

131. Why not put in any chemicals that can help people?

Why not vitamin B or C? Why not Lipitor? Why not trace minerals? I mean now that the principle is breached, we can open the door to put in anything we want!

[JackRiddler]

132. Great point! Famously there's already Prozac(tm) in there.

US
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fish-on-prozac-prove-anxious-anti-social-agressive/


UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3545684.stm

But probably just a drop in the bucket of the tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals released into the environment for the first time in the last century, starting long before there was a concept of "environmental impact." Which is why it's funny when the repeaters of corporate PR ("Science!!! I said it, so it's true!&quot demand proof for health effects, missing the point: minimize experimentation on the general pop! Only fast or dramatic health effects are easily attributed to a given environmental cause (as with smoking for smoker). Everything long-term and possibly having oblique causal pathways ain't found easily through epidemiological studies, and will always be disputable. But hey, a study from 1950 found a correlation between fluoridation and health benefits? Gold standard! Proof! Totally as though they locked 1000 twins in two groups away from all influences for 10 years, gave them identical diets and eliminated all variables except for the double-blind administration of fluoride.

[BadgerKid]

123. Looks like a correlation. What's the causation?

People in industrialized country have access to dental treatments? Use fluoride toothpaste?

At first glance, there are several variables to account for.