The Science Battle on Social Media
In recent years, localized initiatives to end or reject fluoridation of public water supplies have made news in the United States and Canada. The practice has long been considered an effective and safe way to help curb tooth decay. It is endorsed by numerous professional science-based bodies, such as the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). But there is also a long (half century) history of varied opposition, which this Washington Post piece nicely summarizes. What is driving the latest iteration of the anti-fluoridation movement?
In 2010, after politicians in Waterloo, Canada voted to stop fluoridating the city’s water, a local dentist said:
My greatest fear here is with the advent of the Internet, and with the advent of social media, that a small vocal minority of individuals who are perhaps misinformed are able to reach a great number of people.
In 2012, Steven Novella at Science Based Medicine noted:
Recently there has been a Harvard study making the rounds of social media, Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The actual findings of the study do not show that there is any risk to public water fluoridation (if anything, they show that it is safe), but the study was seized upon by antifluoridation activists and distorted for their propaganda purposes. Unfortunately, the internet is now fertile ground for the spreading of propaganda.
At the time of Novella’s post, another study was underway, seeking to quantify the Internet’s role as a potent propaganda tool for anti-fluoridation forces. That study was published last September, but I only learned of it this week, via a tweet from the medical journalist Ivan Oransky, who runs the superb Retraction Watch site.
You can read the paper here and some comments by the lead author here, who is presenting his findings next week at a dental conference in Boston. Looking at stats from Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, the study found that anti-fluoridation material had a major Internet presence. It dwarfed the amount of pro-fluoridation information from public health agencies and organizations. The paper concluded:
The Internet and social media are misinforming thousands of people daily about the safety, health, and economic benefits of community water fluoridation. The leading anti-fluoridation website had 5 to 60 times more traffic than the two leading pro-fluoridation health organizations. All Groups and Pages analyzed on Facebook were against fluoridation, while 99 percent of the videos searched on YouTube and the majority (70 percent) of fluoridation tweets on Twitter were anti-CWF [community water] fluoridation.
Pro-fluoridation organizations need to have a better presence on the Internet and utilize social media to educate the American people about the facts on fluoridation. Individual dental and health practitioners need to educate their patients about fluoridation, so their patients will not be easily misguided by misinformation on the Internet and social media.
The rigor of the analysis is open to question, and it surely is difficult to connect social media’s role to recent anti-fluoridation initiatives that have popped up at local municipal levels. Still, it makes you wonder.
Consider, for example, this article from the popular alternative medicine huckster, Joseph Mercola, which the Huffington Post reproduced in 2013. Look at the web stats for both pieces and weep. He was able to widely disseminate a misrepresentation of an already dubious meta-analysis (of mostly China-based studies) that associated lower IQ’s with fluoridated water. At Slate, Melinda Wenner Moyer reminded everyone of the messenger’s reputation:
Mercola frequently overstates the science and misleads his many readers—among other things, he preaches that vaccines cause autism and that homeopathy cures it, and oh, that animals are psychic—and this story (thankfully) is no different.
It’s shameful that the Huffington Post has given him a platform to amplify his quackery (though it appears he lost that perch in 2014).
The recent study by dental professionals examining the large web presence of anti-fluoridatation propaganda strikes me as impressionistic. Its findings are disconcerting, but they don’t account for the role of high traffic media websites, such as the Huffington Post and Salon. These high visibility media outlets give a veneer of respectability to otherwise slanted, badly flawed stories that get passed around widely on Facebook and other social media platforms. (Last year I showed how this happened with a Guardian blog post.) So I tend to think that a credible or semi-credible journalistic outlet is often responsible for giving misinformation legs in social media.
I don’t wear a tin foil hat but the one thing I do know – and would like to see even more research on – is the role of flouride in the calcification of the pineal gland. It is shown that many people have this occur in their brains, which while on it’s own may not “cause” Alzheimer’s or dementia is something that cannot be discounted as a “natural” thing. I would prefer my pineal gland stay as little calcified as possible.
1950s – 1960s: A plague of juvenile caries.
1970s: The end of juvenile caries. it was not 1 ppm fluoridation of drinking water. It was “better nutrition and oral hygiene.”
21st century: Male children are drugged with speed, adults are drugged with SSRIs. Desert-dry mouths demand mass consumption of bottled “purified” water – no 1 ppm fluoride. A plague of juvenile caries reups for another tour of duty. Empirical reality – what a concept! Smother it with revealed truth and magical thinking. Reality is patient but not forgiving.
“The Internet and social media are misinforming thousands of people daily”
Much like how muzzle loading weapons were what was available at the time of the 2nd amendment, printing presses were the only thing around at the time of the 1st amendment.
Much like how the 2nd amendment needed tweaking (restrictions on fully automatic weapon, calibers over 50, etc…) the 1st may need some tweaking as well…
I went looking for pro-fluoridation information on the net a few months ago (my wife has fluoridation fears). I was shocked to see how much ‘anti’ info there was, vs the pro. The anti’s have all just been left to run wild it seems.
the second amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Now the regulation should be the type of people in the militia and storage of weapons. Not the weapons one can carry how are we suppose to protect ourselves when bad guys have better guns?
Why can it not be discounted as a natural thing?
Actually Fluoride in drinking water is quite natural unless you live I a fluoride poor geographic area. It has long been known that ‘hard water” (that is with dissolved natural minerals is healthier than ‘soft (pure) water With our dams and tanks we are missing out on many of these dissolved minerals, because the water has no been filtered through or on contact with the soils and rocks long enough.
The stuff re Tibet is a real Red Herring. Here the soils are high in natural fluoride, and additionally the local people use ‘fluorite’ grinding stones. This makes the country one of the rare places where natural water has too much fluoride in it.
Pineal gland calcification is believed to result from natural cell death and increases with age. The calcification is mainly in the form of hydroxyapatite (the same stuff as in tooth enamel). Under the right chemical conditions, the fluoride ion replaces the hydoxide ion creating fluoroapatite. So calcification happens first and fluoride accumulation second.
The main impact of caclification is lowered melatonin secretion.
It seems that fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland is independent of fluoride accumulation in bones, so no apparent relationship with high fluoride exposure.
I’m familiar with the research but I think an honest assessment would show that there are still gaps in the science. Here is a summary of the peer-reviewed findings, both in the full version in the first link and some of the specific issues discussed here in the second.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=256
It’s possible to make a case that fluoridation is no longer necessary, because now nearly all Americans have access to fluoride toothpaste. But it’s impossible to make a case that the amount of fluoride in our water is harmful at the dose present.
There are indeed gaps, for example it is not yet clear what causes differences in calcification between individuals and populations. However, it is unlikely to be fluoride exposure due to the lack of correlation between levels of exposure and calcification of the pineal gland. Age is a far better predictor of pineal gland calcification.
The biggest gaps are around whether fluoride exposure leads to changes in pineal gland metabolism.
From animal studies it is known that high levels of exposure to fluoride in young animals (typically way above what is present in fluoridated drinking water) can have impacts on the metabolism of the pineal gland. One such impact is early onset of sexual maturity. This has been shown to happen in animal studies; however, the evidence from epidemiological studies in humans show no significant difference.
Harvard scientist Phillipe Grandjean is co-author of the published peer-reviewed meta-analysis that discovered fluoride is linked to children’s lower IQ. This is his answer to the controversy misrepresenting his research
Mottled fluoride debate
17 December 2014. A meta-analysis on IQ deficits in children exposed to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water spurred much discussion in the US, mostly in regard to the safety of water fluoridation. The 27 studies reviewed in the study were mainly from China and covered
exposures similar to those that occur in areas with fluoridated water and up to 10 times that level. Although children in the high-fluoride areas showed an average IQ 7 points below the controls, the dose-dependence of such deficits is uncertain.
To explore the association further, the team behind the meta-analysis carried out a pilot study in rural Sichuan, China. The results have just been released. The
researchers used the best available and feasible approaches to exposure assessment and cognitive testing of 51 children. Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the US.
Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling
of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth.
The safety of fluoridation for caries prevention is being defended in a recent commentary that claims that the meta-analysis of 27 studies had been “severely
criticized”, although this critique is not further explained. As
evidence of safety, the authors refer to a New Zealand study
that “found that fluoridation is not neurotoxic for either children or adults, and does not have a negative effect on IQ”. This interpretation is rather optimistic, as the statistical confidence limits suggest that a loss of 2-3 IQ points could not be excluded by their findings.
Prevention of caries is an important goal, but that does not justify an exaggeration of fluoridation safety. In the past, scientific evidence on other neurotoxicants, such as lead, mercury, and certain pesticides, has been similarly misconstrued by vested interests. Although the link
between mottled teeth and brain toxicity still needs to be further characterized, the existence of uncertainty is no excuse for mottling the debate with hyperbole. Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.
http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/
Actually, natural fluoride is generally calcium fluoride. Calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning because calcium sticks to the fluoride and carries most of it out of the body so it can’t cause harm. Hydrofluosilicic acid (HFS) is a waste product of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing that is allowed to contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic and other toxins while being poured into water supplies.
HFS has never been safety tested in animals or humans. Fluoridation has never been tested nationally in the US for brain deficits and other harmful and long-term adverse health effects.
If you don’t look, you won’t find.
When hexafluorosilicic acid dissolves in water it produces fluoride ions that are indistinguishable from any other fluoride ion.
dont confuse them with scientific facts…
Consider this:
In the US, over 70 % fluoridated.
In Europe, 3%.
In the world, 5%.
Also Israel banned fluoridation last year.
Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe is as good or better than any fluoridated country. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth
Ever watch the BBC?
There’s a pretty simple explanation for the massive volume of anti-fluoride material on the web.
You all must have heard of SEO, aka “search engine optimization”? Some person wants to drive advertising at his anti-fluoride website, so for $500 he can get 20 or so “articles” written about anti-fluoride topics and have them posted to various websites, with each article providing a link back to his site. The number of independent links drives his site up on the search engine. All the articles are written by slave writers, who get paid 1.5 cents a word to bash out a unique article on the topic using whatever references they can find in the 15-30min they’ll spend researching and writing the article.
While there is only one NIH, there might be 5-10 jokers out there trying to make a living off selling adds on their anti-fluoride site. And while the NIH doesn’t need SEO to keep it’s site at the top of search rankings, all the people trying to make a link-living do, so they generate a huge volume of articles.
Summing it up: low-paid writers are churning out hundreds of trash “articles,” each written in a matter of minutes, to drive traffic to anti-fluoride sites so those sites can sell adds.
You bring up a great point but miss the real issue. All things said being equal, WHY are pro-fluoridation sites being panned relative to anti-fluoridation sites? One possible answer is that the general population has a DEEP SEATED DISTRUST of corporate sponsored claims. The next question you should ask is WHY does that distrust exist? Answer: there are so many examples of corporate malfeasance that have hurt and KILLED people all in the selfish rush towards endless profits with no social consciousness. If corporations actually went back returned to their original charter statements that they exist to serve and better society, maybe that trust could be earned back.
Are you being sarcastic, or are you saying anyone should be able to own a F22 Raptor with guided bombs and heat seeking missiles?
This article is so typical of the human rights abusers who push forced-fluoridation. It relies on endorsements and criticises others’ knowledge, while failing to cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that the forced-fluoridation experiment is anything but harmful and useless. We all know why that is. It also ignores the lack of ethics inherent in violating people’s right to informed consent to medical intervention. The forced-fluoridation fanatics are the ultimate hypocrites.
The lack of statistically significant correlation you refer to is most likely due to the small sample size and/or confounding factors in Jennifer Luke’s study. You’re reading too much into inadequate data. Age is strongly correlated with accumulated fluoride in the body, by the way.
You don’t seem to understand that accumulation of fluoride does cause excessive musculoskeletal calcification.
2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
p 214 “fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans”
What, as opposed to being locked up or otherwise censored even more than we already are, you mean? You have a fascist mentality.
It’s not as simple as being all about free fluoride ions. From the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards:
p 42 “Further research should include characterisation of both the exposure conditions and the physiological conditions (for fluoride and for aluminium or beryllium) under which aluminofluoride and beryllofluoride complexes can be expected to occur in humans as well as the biological effects that could result.”
p 43/44 “PJ Jackson et al. (2002) have calculated that at pH 7, in the presence of aluminium, 97.46% of a total fluoride concentration of 1 mg/L is present as fluoride ion, but at pH 6, only 21.35% of the total fluoride is present as fluoride ion, the rest being present in various aluminium fluoride species”
p 44 “given the expected presence of fluoride ion (from any fluoridation source) and silica (native to the water) in any fluoridated tap water, it would be useful to examine what happens when that tap water is used to make acidic beverages or products (commercially or in homes), especially fruit juice from concentrate, tea, and soft drinks. Although neither Urbansky (2002) nor Morris (2004) discusses such beverages, both indicate that at pH < 5, [fluorosilicate] would be present, so it seems reasonable to expect that some [fluorosilicate] would be present in acidic beverages but not in the tap water used to prepare the beverages."
It’s you who is confused.
It isn’t present in water at a dose, it’s present at a concentration, dimwit. The dose which people receive is highly variable.
Legitimate science establishing that fluoridation is is harmful to humans has existed since the1970’s, but the powers of the fluoridation promoters and the USPHS, CDC and EPA to suppress it have been greater. “Peer-reviewed science”? Dentists are the peers of dental researchers. They have been conditioned for generations to believe the false claims about fluoridation and they have a vested interest in protecting the faulty science that supports their beliefs. Peer review doesn’t mean objective or scientifically rigorous.
But the science is not the most fundamental issue, anyway. Fluoridation
is un-American. It’s a violation of personal sovereignty and of health
care ethics. Only the power of propaganda could have foisted this
Orwellian absurdity on an entire society. Look again, all you clever, nobody’s fool journalists.Those fluoridation advocates, like that storied naked emperor, are in an embarrassing state of delusion.
???????????????????????
It seems you don’t understand a thing about what you are quoting.
These reactions happen regardless of whether the fluoride ion comes from heaxfluorosilic acid or some ‘natural’ source.
All of the journalists referenced here who believe objecting to fluoridation is quackery need to know about the findings of investigative journalist Christopher Bryson (The Fluoride Deception, 2004). Using FOIA documents and interviews with principals, Bryson has documented the scientific, professional, and PR shenanigans that have gone on behind the scenes since WWII to convince health professionals and ordinary Americans–against all logic and common sense–that continuous exposure to a “tiny” bit of an admitted
accumulative protoplasmic poison (enzyme inhibitor, hormone disruptor, mutagen, carcinogen, neurotoxin, industrial pollutant)
administered non-consensually and haphazardly in community water supplies miraculously reduces tooth decay for everyone without doing any harm to anyone.
This is the astonishing crushing power of propaganda, the force of mass mind-molding discovered in the early years of the 20th century and put into the service of all the industrial and political malefactors who now take advantage of us without compunction, whether it’s air and water pollution, physical destruction of the environment, dangerous drugs, unsafe vehicles, unhealthy foods, fluoridation, and more.
See an interview with Bryson on YouTube–The Fluoride Deception. Also look for Politics of Fluoride, interviews with EPA scientists and a Harvard researcher fired for publishing her negative findings about fluoride.
Fluoridation objectors in the US have been in the minority up to now,
but that’s slowly changing. Why? Because more people are becoming aware that there is no scientifically legitimate evidence that supports the tired mantra that fluoridation is safe and effective.
Obviously Mr. Novella has not critically reviewed the science put forward to support fluoridation. And he is unaware that the Harvard meta-analysis of fluoride neurotoxicity research is valid, and that fluoridation promoters are desperate to discredit it by issuing false reports about it.
And no, the involvement of Joseph Mercola in opposing fluoridation is
not reassuring to skeptics. But please bear in mind that just because
he may be wrong about some alternative medical views doesn’t mean that all objections to fluoridation are illegitimate. After all, you may wrongly report that fluoridation is legit, but that doesn’t mean that everything YOU report is wrong.
Jennifer Luke didn’t study human epidemiology. The two relevant studies appear to be the Newburgh Kingston study, which included 842 girls and a Hungarian study with 804 girls.
Looks like plenty to me to find a difference if one really existed.
Corporations exist to generate profits for shareholders. Government exists solely to serve and protect the physical well being and legal rights of the public whom it derives power and revenue from. Both have earned their share of distrust. The difference is after doing so one can go out of business and cease to injure the public, while the other just gets larger.
Studies, schmudies. Dr. Oz is against flouridation. And he has a TV show.
That escalated quickly? What I meant is (and maybe this will come across as more palatable) is that I found very little writing in the form of challenge or rebuttal to the information being put forth by anti fluoridation websites. I went online expecting a raging debate, and found nothing like that- it was all very one sided. That was quite surprising.
Certainly I can empathise with my wife’s position.
The Kingston/Newburgh study only examined school children – no pre-schoolers or adults. It also didn’t look for brain deficits, fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland or any long term effects. Even though it was planned to last ten years, the study was considered a “success” after five years, before the permanent teeth of those born into the experiment had erupted. So fluoridation took off across the US and then to other countries based on a political decision not a scientific one.
After ten years the school children were examined and the children in fluoridated Newburgh had more cortical bone defects, more anemia and early puberty than those in the non-fluoridated control city of Kingston.
After 50 years, Kingston/Newburgh was re-visited for tooth effects and Newburgh children have more tooth decay and more dental fluorosis than never fluoridated Kingston New York
That’s just crazy talk. Show us the evidence please. It’s the fluoridationists who doing that sort of stuff The American Dental Association is pouring half million dollars into a social media campaign specifically on fluoridation.
Pew is funding a social media storm today – giving all their allies talking points, twitter and facebook messages to flood the internet with biased one-sided information created by a person paid to spin the truth.
Over $30 million dollars is spent by government agencies to promote, instigate and protect fluoridation.
1.5 cents a word is 1.5 cents more than I get
The fact that a study on developmental neurologic toxicity of fluoridation failed to find any such effects does not mean it is safe. There are other possible ways in which fluoridation might be harmful.
Plus, fluoridation is not applied in most countries of the world, without any evidence (I think) of higher frequencies of mouth conditions.
I live in Germany. Tap water isn’t flouridated, but it is very common here to give flouride to infants and toddlers and salt often comes with flouride (and iodine).
Yes, that’s the point. Calcium fluoride doesn’t dissociate completely.
So in Germany you have a personal choice. You are not forces to consume the fluoride added to drinking water.
Everyone deserves freedom of choice.
What a fascinating discussion thread. Just amazing how deeply the tendency towards polarization runs.
Interesting that anti-flouridation activism was so strongly associated with the rightwing in the past. I wonder how those who are so convinced that alarmism is a product of “liberal” ideology reconcile that?
The big money made by the industries which sell their toxic waste fluoride to communities instead of having to process and dispose of it ($ billions) drives the promoters and all of the lobbyists hired to conceal the truth with government and national groups.
Big money drove many issues for years like the “science” of tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, thalidomide, and asbestos, which were all wrong. The “Vioxx” science resulted in 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths ( FDA data). Remember when the health professionals advertised, “a pack a day keeps cancer away?”
The 70 year old “science” of fluoride is outdated, discredited and wrong as well, but it will take time to reverse this mistake.
There are some non-polemic arguments against fluoridation. It is my understanding that people who actually brush their teeth daily get no benefit from fluoridation of water. The vast majority of fluoridated water never enters a human at all. People who don’t drink water from the tap (I’m looking at you, liberals) obviously don’t get any benefit. Fluoridation costs money. My guess is almost nobody knows how much this costs. Is it worth it? I don’t really know the answer but I suspect it is worth it.
Some people don’t drink tap water because it has a poor taste. I can tell you from living in different communities the variation of the quality of tap water is pretty large.
There are also other solutions like only fluoridating water in poor communities where there are more at risk residents, only fluoridate drinking water at schools, etc.
For the record, I’m not buying into the chemophobia toxicity argument.
In Ireland, the Leitrim Observer reports today:
Leitrim County Council has become the seventh council to vote to end the fluoridation of public water supplies in Ireland.
Councillors Brendan Barry and Sean McDermott both put forward motions at the January meeting seeking the cessation of fluoridation.
Cllr Barry pointed out that the European Court of Justice has defined fluoridation as a medication noting “therefore the public water fluoridation equated to involuntary and indiscriminate medication of the Irish people”.
He said the EU has issued directives that babies and toddlers should not be exposed to fluoridated water and said children between one and four are most at risk of developing fluorosis which damages teeth enamel.
“Studies have linked fluoridation to a wide range of medical diseases including kidney
malfunctions, arthritis and bone cancers,” added the Sinn Féin councillor. He said fluoridation is banned in 98% of European countries and criticised the Irish government for “continuing to impose fluoride on the Irish people and on top of that it is now forcing us to pay for it through water charges”.
Cllr Sean McDermott put forward a similar motion at the meeting. The
Fine Gael councillor insisted that people were getting enough fluoride
from other sources such as toothpaste and said the widespread opposition
to the practice of water fluoridation should add weight to the argument
to cease this practice immediately.
joey, you are obviously obtaining your “information” from the New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”. If you will cease reliance on such dubious sources, and instead begin to properly educate yourself on this issue from reliable, respected sources, you will find that there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects to the pineal gland, or any other aspect of the human body, from optimally fluoridated water.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Joey, see my previous comment in regard to the 2006 NRC Committee. Had this Committee noted any concerns with pineal gland calcification in regard to fluoride at the level of 4.0 ppm and lower, it have been responsible for so stating in its final report, and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The end fluoridation train has left the station and is picking up speed. Smart journalists and health professionals will stop swallowing the hoary fallacious PR and get up to speed on this issue. Hint: the actual science, amassed over more than half a century and suppressed by the fluoridation promoters, repudiates any and all claims that fluoridation is helpful to anyone other than the industries that want a cheap disposal program for their fluoride waste. Fluoridation IS harmful to humans, animals and the environment. You better believe it.
Nyscof (the “Media Relations Director” for the New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”),
Even Grandjean and Choi, themselves, fully understood the severity of flaws in the 27 Cinese studies, to the extent that they issued the following statement in 2012:
“–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
The 2014 “pilot study” of Choi and Grandjean was of elevated levels of fluoride in water. Water is fluoridated at the extremely low level of 0.7 ppm.
From the abstract of the “pilot study”:
“A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on developmental fluoride neurotoxicity support the hypothesis that exposure to elevated concentrations of fluoride in water is neurotoxic during development.”
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I tend to agree on this, but it’s not so simple, because there could be cultural and economic differences in how people (can) use this choice. See, if people in Germany have a choice and use it to their (average) benefit by choosing alternative offers when suitable, the same might not work elsewhere. A typical example would be developing countries where access to fluoride in form of pills or gels or as additive to salt, even just coverage by dentists, is very limited. In such situations, there might be a larger overall benefit from taking a one-size-fits-all approach.
Nyscof, if Connett is not paying you enough to be the “Media Relations Director” for his New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”, you should, most certainly, talk to him about splitting the profits he makes from keeping this issue alive.
Yes, it costs an enormous amount of money to counter the constant onslaught of misinformation constantly disseminate by “FAN”. It costs very little time, effort, or money to simply toss out one unsubstantiated claim after another, hoping some will stick in the minds of those who do not understand the fallacy of them. On the other hand, it takes a large amount of time and effort to provide the properly researched, properly documented, evidence which proves the misinformation to be such.
If it upsets you that the ADA and the Government are expending funds to defend a very effective public health initiative against the constant flood of misinformation put out by you, “FAN”, and your minions around the world, then cease doing it. Begin to take the words “truth and accuracy” seriously, and begin to properly educate the public, rather than misinforming and deceiving it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Fluoridation is even worse for poor and minority children because tooth health depends on diet and dental care and not fluoride.
Maybe someone can explain why after 70 years of adding this toxic waste fluoride to drinking water in the U.S., cities and states are announcing epidemics in tooth decay..
Chicago, fluoridated for 58 years, reports that 64% of third graders have tooth decay. Similar reports occur in most fluoridated states (over 60 years) and many cities like Cincinnati, Boston, Detroit and Washington D.C., etc.
Kentucky was one of the first states in the entire nation to fluoridate their municipal-drinking-water supply, starting in 1951; and by 1971, the state was 100% fluoridated. Yet, in 2009, the state of Kentucky’s dental health was such that Governor Steve Besher had to declare a dental-health crisis.
You don’t see rebuttals to the science cited by fluoridation objectors because their evidence is unassailable– (for the most part. Obviously in a heated public controversy like this there are folks on both sides who will talk through their hats.) When you want to evaluate science you have to get into the nitty-gritty of experimental design, statistical analysis and researcher integrity and wade through detailed reports and analyses.
If you’re trying to decide what to think about fluoridation, rather than personal use/consumption of fluoride, the answer is simple: Fluoridation is a violation of everyone’s personal sovereignty and also a violation of health care ethics.
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, October 2005. Article 6 – Consent, Paragraph 1:
“Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is
only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the
person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should,
where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person
concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or
prejudice.”
The 1947 Nuremberg Code says the same thing.
Much of the ambiguity on this subject stems from the lack of clarity between naturally occurring calcium fluoride and industrially produced sodium fluoride. How about an informed discussion clarifying this problem before we are all too retarded from the latter to care. Also, no one addresses the unethical forced medicating of the general populace with a chemical of which products containing it warn of its ingestion warranting calling the poison control center. Then flavor it like bubble-gum and tell kids not to swallow any of it twice a day. (Toothpaste)
Also, no one addresses the unethical forced medicating of the general populace with a chemical of which products containing it warn of its ingestion warranting calling the poison control center. Then flavor it like bubble-gum and tell kids not to swallow any of it twice a day. (Toothpaste)
Anti-floridation arguments always remind me of General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. That said, I will only pass along some speculation by my old college chemistry professor. He was lecturing on chlorine and used it to illustrate the concept of trade-offs. Chlorination is used to sanitize everything from swimming pools to drinking water. He also pointed out that the same property makes it, in theory, a carcinogen. However, the potential deaths from chlorination – induced cancer was way lower than the potential for death from water borne illnesses that would certainly occur without chlorination.
Then he observed that fluorine was more reactive than chlorine, and might, in theory, be a carcinogen as well. He then mused whether prevention of tooth decay was a sufficient trade-off.
So, James, you believe that because water flows from your faucet you are somehow forced to drink it?
That is a cognitive issue with you, not a problem with warer fluoridation. If you don’t like the content of the public water supply in your area, no one will force you to drink it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Hmmm, Janet, ever wonder why you can never provide any of this “actual science” you believe exists? Because the only place it exists in in your own delusions.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The type of trade-off you’re talking about is imperious and unethical, but we know that government officials make them in war, for instance, and, we see, in public policy as well. I don’t know when your old prof was speaking, but it is established that both chlorine and fluorides ARE carcinogens. However, chlorine can be removed easily at the point of use with an inexpensive charcoal filter. Chlorine also outgasses when heated or left standing. Such is not the case with fluoride which concentrates when water boils and must be removed by expensive reverse osmosis or deionization. There’s no need to muse about the “value” of decay prevention since there is none. Fluoridation is a non-consensual indiscriminant bogus dental treatment of water consumers, not the water to make it safe to drink. You should be disturbed that your prof was apparently comfortable with the idea that fluoridation would be acceptable if it benefitted many while causing suffering and death to only a few. Fluoridation should make your skin crawl because the fluoridators DO KNOW that it kills and maims people while benefiting only the industries that get to dump their fluoride waste into our water for a profit.
Yes, the politicians in Ireland have shrewdly deduced that they can make these meaningless resolutions which satisfy the vocal activist zealots, while changing absolutely nothing.
Actually a pretty smart manner in which to handle that group.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“I’m familiar with the research but I think an honest assessment would show that there are still gaps in the science”
There are gaps in all science. Just ask creationists.
Germouse
The variability of consumption of fluoridated water is well within the parameters of safety. Allow me to explain this to you. Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let’s go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg “dose” of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or “dose” from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day.
The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.
The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Ahh, once again, James sees no need to provide any evidence to support his ridiculous nonsense.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Fluoride is fluoride no matter which ion you’re talking about, and it’s always an accumulative protoplasmic poison, just like arsenic or lead. “Natural” or endemic fluoride produces dental and oskeletal fluorosis and other bodily harm just like sodium fluoride and fluosilicic acid. Debating differences is like counting angels on the head of a pin.
How can anyone be making big money selling Fluoride compounds to go in drinking water at 0.7ppm???
What a howl.
Diamond Dan! :)) You’re pretty good at dishin’ but not so hot at thinkin’.
That fluoridated water goes into your Starbucks and every other beverage and food made with it. There’s no escape for bottled water drinkers or anyone else. The fluoride is absorbed through your skin when you bathe in it too.
Janet, in order to rebut “science cited by fluoridation objectors”, there must first be “science cited by fluoridation objectors”. As evidenced by your own comments, there are no such citations.
Citations to “fluoridealert” and other such little antifluoridationist websites and blogs does not constitute science.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Sadly this blog is evidence that people do get their information from quackery sources. Here you have Stephen a dentist battling against someone that read something somewhere while sitting in his chair at home, formed an opinion and therefore what would a professional know that has spent five years at university and most likely plenty of years in the profession. I know who I am more likely to believe.
Yes, nyscof. If you don’t look you won’t find. Which is precisely why you remain so utterly uninformed on this issue.
Calcium fluoride is not “natural fluoride”, it is the compound calcium fluoride. In order to learn the difference between an ion and a compound, you will need to “look” within a high school chemistry course.
As groundwater courses over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions leached from calcium fluoride and fluorosilicates within those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “natural fluoride”.
Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is extracted from rocks as a co-product of the same process that extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid co-product is utilized in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat and in soft drinks we consume. The hydrofluorosilic acid co-product is carefully diluted to an aqueous 23% solution, which is utilized to fluoridate public water systems. Hmmmm, wonder why antifluoridationists only consider one co-product to be “toxic waste” while seeming to be just fine with the other?
At any rate, when HFA is added to drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates) into fluoride ions and trace contaminants. The fluoride ions are identical to the “natural” ones which have existed in water forever, and the trace cintaminants are in such barely detectable, minuscule amounts, so far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety, that it is not even a certainty that they aren’t the ones that existed in the water already. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is of no concern, whatsoever.
If you wish to properly educate yourself on hydrofluorosilic acid and the minuscule contaminants which may be detected in fluoridated, or any other, water, you may “look” on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Germouse, as you remain so constantly confused about the 2006 NRC report, let’s simplify it even further for you……
The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Unethical you say? What, then of those who died of Cholera and Typhoid Fever from contaminated water? Riddle me this: If we have the means to prevent deaths we know will occur due to water borne illnesses and chose not to do so, is this ethical?
Steve, you often post this silly response. Most people, particularly poor people can’t afford to buy bottled water. After all, they already pay for their drinking water.
The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
It is primarily the fertilizer industry which makes $ millions selling their toxic waste fluoride to communities instead of having to process it. The many companies all have lobbyists to keep government agencies in line and cover up the truth.
It is not exactly known how they also fund national associations to join in the same fraud.
Uh, no. Chemical compounds do matter. There’s a big difference between NaOH and NaCl. For that matter, there’s a huge difference between pure sodium, oxygen, hydrogen, and chlorine. Or consider the difference between H20 and H2 and O2.
For instance, you have pointed out that Chlorine can be out-gassed from water, but Fluorine cannot. Yet Fluorine itself is a very reactive gas. Thus the compound (s) used in Fluoridation are not pure Fluorine, and will have different properties from the gas.
I know this sounds pedantic, but to evaluate health risks, if any, from Fluoridation, we have to consider the compounds used.
The bit about fluoridation in bottled water is true enough. To illustrate, look at bottled water in a store, and note how many are from municipal water supplies.
Not all water is, though cavet emptor applies if you’re looking to bottled water to escape fluoridation. For instance, a certain store brand that billed itself from coming from a certain aquifer. Fluoride free? Not necessarily. Unless they sunk their own well, it might be from the city wells, which then raises the question of whether that particular city uses fluoridation. Not only that, some groundwater source have natural fluoridation.
Reverse osmosis can remove fluoridation, but there’s the question of how much is left in the water.
I suppose if someone’s really worried about it, they could use distilled water.
Chris, you misunderstand. You are thinking science. Antifluoridationists twist the quotes they pluck, to fit antifluoridationist “science”. The two have very little in common.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Maybe Mrs. Kopf, aka Nyscof, could carry Paul Connett’s bags on his next book tour of Australia and New Zealand, and get a free trip paid by “donations” to the so-called non-profit, FAN.
You need a basic chemistry class:
Here is what the CDC says about
fluoride ions all being the same:
Fluoride Additives Are Not Different From Natural Fluoride
Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as HFSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no
intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.
The ionic speciation study conducted in 2006
mentioned previously (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW.
Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH
measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)
The pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride was studied by a 2008 study (G.M. Whitford, F.C. Sampaio, C.S. Pinto, A.G. Maria,
V.E.S. Cardoso, M.A.R. Buzalaf, Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: Lack of effect of chemical compound, Archives of Oral Biology, 53 (2008) 1037–1041)
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engine…
‘dr’ slott, can you tell us more about your ‘collecting rain water’ idea for poor people who have thyroid, or kidney problems, etc and can’t afford expensive bottled water or a filtration system?
also, incase you missed it: I made a mention of your ‘collecting rain water’ lunacy in my ‘plot to mandate artificial fluoridation’ article.
Yes, James. A silly comment gets a silly response. Stop posting asinine nonsense and you will stop getting “silly” responses to it.
Having fluoride piped into ones home or business is a convenience, not a right. For a fee, one can avoid the time, effort, and expense of obtaining water, hauling it to his or her home, and storing it for use. Communities provide this as a service to their citizenries. Anyone who does not like the contents of the public water system from which their community offers to pipe water to their home…..is certainly free to not drink or otherwise utilize it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Amy
People with thyroid or kidney problems need not collect rain water unless they so desire. There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects to the kidneys or thyroid from fluoridated water. Anyone who is severely medically compromised, whether that be with kidney, thyroid, or anything else, must pay strict attention to everything they ingest, in strict accordance with instructions from their healthcare provider.
Sorry I must’ve missed your “article”. I don’t waste my time on unsubstantiated nonsense from uninformed antifluoridationists, anyway.
Now, why don’t you cease your ridiculous fear-mongering attempt to exploit “poor people” in order to impose your personal ideology upon everyone, and begin to properly educate yourself on this issue from proper sources, instead of lazily perusing antifluoridationists websites and blogs for your nonsense?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Wow! Great advice for a community. Pay for your drinking water but seek other sources for your supply. It seems some promoters of this unethical practice are off the deep end.
you missed a good opportunity to further discredit yourself. your loss.
‘dr’ slott, can you explain how fluoride affects thyroid function, and why healthy thyroid function is important to dental health? also any theories about what’s fueling the current hypothyroidism epidemic?
James, if you desire not to pay your water bill, you need to address that with the accounting department of your local utilities department.
In regard to fluoridated public water supplies, once again, no one will force you to drink, or otherwise utilize such water if you don’t like its content, or for any other reason. The choice is entirely yours.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Amy
If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any thyroid oroblems attributable to fluoridated water then present it, properly cited. That you cannot do so is very telling.
Discussing adverse effects of any substance without taking into consideration proper use levels, is meaningless. There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water.
I don’t deal in meaningless speculation and “theories”. I deal in facts and evidence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
it sounds like endocrinology is too complex a subject for you to understand. stick to your conspiracy theories involving the national kidney foundation and your fluorosis repair business.
So, in other words, yet once again, you can provide no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water on the thyroid.
Exactly.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
‘dr’ slott, when fluoride was prescribed as an anti-thyroid (to treat hyperthyroidism), what was the average daily dosage?
Bachinskii PP et al. 1985. Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 31(6):25-9. [See study]
Burgi H, et al. (1984). Fluorine and the Thyroid Gland: A Review of the Literature. Klin Wochenschr. 1984 Jun 15;62(12):564-9.
Caldwell KL, et al. (2008). Iodine status of the U.S. population, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Thyroid 18(11):1207-14.
Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 2012 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print] [See study]
Galletti P, Joyet G. (1958). Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18(10):1102-1110. [See study]
Gas’kov A, et al. (2005). The specific features of the development of iodine deficiencies in children living under environmental pollution with fluorine compounds. Gig Sanit. Nov-Dec;(6):53-5. [See study]
Gencer B, et al. (2012). Subclinical thyroid dysfunction and the risk of heart failure events: An individual participant data analysis from six prospective cohorts.Circulation 2012 Jul 19. [Epub ahead of print]
Guan ZZ, et al. (1988). Synergistic action of iodine-deficiency and fluorine-intoxication on rat thyroid. Chinese Medical Journal 101(9):679-84. [See study]
Hong F, et al. (2001). Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environmental conditions. Chinese Primary Health Care 15: 56-57. [See study]
Hosur MB, et al. (2012). Study of thyroid hormones free triiodothyronine (FT3), free thyroxine (FT4) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) in subjects with dental fluorosis. European Journal of Dentistry 6:184-90.
Klein RZ, et al. (2010). Relation of severity of maternal hypothyroidism to cognitive development of offspring. Journal of Medical Screening 8(1):18-20.
Haddow JE, et al. (1999). Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child. New England Journal of Medicine 341(8):549-55.
Lin F, et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished inIodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25). [See study]
Lin F, et al. (1986). A preliminary approach to the relationship of both endemic goiter and fluorosis in the valley of Manasi River, Xin-Jiang to environmental geochemistry. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 5(1):53-55.
Maumené E. (1854). Experiencé pour déterminer l’action des fluores sur l’economie animale. Compt Rend Acad Sci (Paris) 39:538-539.
Mikhailets ND, et al. (1996). Functional state of thyroid under extended exposure to fluorides Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 42:6-9. [See study]
National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA’s standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. [See study]
Pontigo-Loyola A, et al. (2008). Dental fluorosis in 12- and 15-year-olds at high altitudes in above-optimal fluoridated communities in Mexico. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 68(3):163-66.
Ren Da-Li. (1989). A study of the intellectual ability of 8-14 year-old children in high fluoride, low iodine areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:251. [See study]
Rodondi N, et al. (2010). Subclinical hypothyroidism and the risk of coronary heart disease and mortality. JAMA 304(12):1365-74.
Susheela AK, et al. (2005). Excess fluoride ingestion and thyroid hormone derangements in children living in New Delhi, India. Fluoride 38:98-108. [See study]
Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90. [See study]
Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84. [See study]
Yang Y, et al. (1994). The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology15(4):296-98 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:336-339). [See study]
Yao Y, et al. (1996). Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27. [See study]
Yu Y. (1985). Study on serum T4, T3, and TSH levels in patients with chronic skeletal fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 4(3):242-43.
Zhao W, Zhu H, Yu Z, Aoki K, Misumi J, Zhang X. 1998. Long-term effects of various iodine and fluorine doses on the thyroid and fluorosis in mice. Endocrine Regulation 32(2):63-70. [See study]
Are you seeking help for this bizarre obsession you have with the thyroid gland?
Yet once again, please provide valid, peer reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects to the thyroid by optimally fluoridated water.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Once again, please provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water on the thyroid gland. None of these studies you have cited do this…..which you would understand had you read any of them.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
yes, after years of undiagnosed hypothyroidism (thanks to mediocre ‘drs’ like yourself), i am seeing an endocrinologist. 🙂
refer to my ‘diagnosing hypothyroidism: is our doctors learning?’ for more on that saga.
how about you? are you getting all the professional help that you need?
1. Mental help is to what I was inquiring for you.
2. I don’t treat hypothyroidism.
3. The following is the opinion of a highly respected endocrinologist from the University of Florida:
August 27, 2013
To Whom It May Concern:
As a practicing endocrinologist, I was appalled at the claims that fluoridated drinking water causes clinically significant harm to the endocrine system.
Clinically, in more than 30 years of seeing patients, I have never seen any fractures or thyroid problems associated with fluoridated water. Early puberty is more associated with obesity than anything else, though there are many endocrine disrupters that have estrogenic effect. Fluoride has not been implicated, though lavender, tea tree oil and HCG, substances found commonly in hair products, have been.
I looked at the papers cited about the effects of fluoride on thyroid function and could find none that suggested any effect on thyroid at doses used in fluoridated water. A Review of the literature published in 1986 came to the same conclusion:
“The increasing use of fluoride for prevention of dental caries poses the problem as to whether this halogen has antagonistic properties towards iodine, whereby it could hamper the success of iodine prophylaxis of endemic goitre. Review of the literature shows that some authors have found an inhibition by fluoride of various steps of thyroid hormone biosynthesis in animal experiments. By and large, the inhibition was only slight and it was elicited only with fluoride doses greatly in excess of those recommended for caries prevention. The inhibition was not consistently present and other authors could not confirm it in comparable experiments. There is no convincing evidence that fluoride produces true goitres with epithelial hyperplasia in experimental animals. There are some reports based on casual observations that fluoride is goitrogenic in man. On the other hand, several good studies with adequate exposed and control populations failed to detect any goitrogenic effect of fluoride in man. It is noteworthy in particular that fluoride does not potentiate the consequences of iodine deficiency in populations with a borderline or low iodine intake.Published data failed to support the view that fluoride, in doses recommended for caries prevention, adversely affects the thyroid.”
I hope this clarifies the issues a bit more.
Sincerely,
Janet Silverstein, MD, FAAP
Steven D. Slott, DDS
have you ever considered the possibility that you, the fluorosis profiteer who peddlers fluoride all day, has conspiracy theories involving the nkf, and believes that a random letter referencing a 1986 review magically overrides the 2006 review on fluoride by the nrc, etc. needs the therapy?
you could call your local hazardous waste management company (who supplies your industrial fluoride) and ask how much it would cost to dispose of it properly, vs getting paid by local municipalities to dump it into the drinking water supply.
How? Put on a smiley face.
In 2013 the Tampa Bay Times won a Pulitzer prize for Editorial Writing with its coverage of fluoridation politics in that region
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2013/links/pulitzer/
It is regrettable that credible media outlets sometimes assist disinformation dissemination, It is equally sad that so few are willing to champion the straightforward truth of fluoridation’s benefit and safety.
1. There is no profit to be made from mild to very mild dental fluorosis. It requires no treatment. The only “profiteers” of whom I’m aware, in regard to fluoridation, are the antifluoridationist activist Paul Connett, his family, and his cohorts in their little cottage industry, “FAN”.
2. “Conspiracy theories involving the nkf”? I could not even attempt to understand whatever you mean with this nonsebse.
3. Neither am I aware of any “random” letter to which you refer. The letter I presented was from a highly respected endocrinologist from the University of Florida. Obviously, it does not “override the 2006 review on fluoride by the nrc”. It is in complete agreement with the report of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, which you would understand if you had actually read this report. Obviously you have not, so allow me to enlighten you.
The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Steven D. Slott, DDS
problem solved 😀
The Kingston/Newburgh study only examined school children – no pre-schoolers or adults. It also didn’t look for brain deficits, fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland or any long term effects.
I didn’t cite the study for any of these things, so the fact that they weren’t examined is irrelevant. I cited it as evidence around earlier menarche in humans, something that occurs in animal studies where high doses of fluoride are given.
Even though it was planned to last ten years, the study was considered a “success” after five years, before the permanent teeth of those born into the experiment had erupted. So fluoridation took off across the US and then to other countries based on a political decision not a scientific one.
The whole point of fluoridation is that it reduces dental caries in existing teeth and it does so virtually immediately. Your argument is simple irrelevant.
After ten years the school children were examined and the children in fluoridate d
Newburgh had more cortical bone defects, more anemia and early puberty than those in the non-fluoridated control city of Kingston.
None of these differences were significantly different between the two groups. It says so in the paper. http://jada.ada.org/article/S0002-8177(56)23009-1/pdf
The frequency of cancer was higher in Kingston, but that was also not significant. Cherry picking non-significant results is pretty good evidence you don’t know what you are talking about.
After 50 years, Kingston/Newburgh was re-visited for tooth effects and Newburgh children have more tooth decay and more dental fluorosis than never fluoridated Kingston New York
There was no significant difference in dental caries between the two towns, largely as a result of the residents of Kingston taking fluoride supplements and the fluoridation of toothpaste. Perhaps the most significant finding was that dental caries were significantly more common among the poor of
Kingston than the poor of Newburgh. Children of poor families are less likely to have good tooth-brushing habits
How does that change the behaviour of fluoride ions in water?
If you add 0.7 ppm fluoride ions from calcium fluoride or from hexafluorosilicic acid, you end up with an identical 0.7 ppm fluoride ions. Of course you have to add a lot more moles of CaF2 to get the same concentration of fluoride ions.
Are you seeking help for this bizarre obsession you have with teeth?
What you actually wrote was “it is not yet clear what causes differences in calcification between individuals and populations. However, it is unlikely to be fluoride exposure due to the lack of correlation between levels of exposure and calcification of the pineal gland.” Those are general statements. You can’t now claim you were only referring to the early onset of puberty in girls. And Jennifer Luke did look at the pineal glands of humans. A correlation between levels of fluoride exposure and calcification of the pineal gland is more likely to be evident in the elderly than young people because there has been more time for fluoride accumulation. What you have said is “unlikely” is a completely unsubstantiated guess.
There is absolutely no way that 10 mg fluoride per day is safe.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/
So what if they happen regardless of where the fluoride ions come from? I’m just pointing out that it is not as simple as being all about free fluoride ions. Try comprehending what is actually written on the page.
It doesn’t work like that. Calcium fluoride can dissociate completely to give 0.7 ppm free fluoride ions in water, but beyond a certain point no more calcium fluoride will dissociate. When the fluoride concentration of water is measured using a fluoride selective electrode, it is typically treated first in an attempt to release bound fluoride ions and measure the total fluoride concentration, not just the original concentration of free fluoride ions.
Telling a dentist he has “a bizarre obsession with teeth”?
Real intelligent…..
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Hmmm, the personal opinion of online commenter Germouse, and his little blog, “forcedfreedomfighters”, or the findings of the United States Institute of Medicine?
Oh…decisions, decisions, decisions….who to believe, who to believe……
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Tell me, is a failure in reading comprehension compulsory on joining the anti-fluoridation movement?
Jennifer Luke measured the amount of fluoride in calcification deposits in the pineal gland of humans and showed it was correlated with the amount of calcium in the same deposits, but not correlated with the amount of fluoride in bones. Fluoride in bones is a good predictor of fluoride exposure.
Jennifer Luke did no epidemiological research.
Seriously?
I never thought anyone could write something quite so ignorant.
Fluoride causes developmental defects, so let’s focus on the population affected. The U.S. Institute of Medicine says the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of fluoride is 0.1 mg/kg/day for infants, toddlers, and children up to 8 years old,
For formula-fed infants under one year old, Erdal and Buchanan (2005) estimated that the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) for cumulative average intake of fluoride was 0.11 mg/kg/day, if their drinking water is not fluoridated. In fluoridated areas, the infant RME was 0.20 mg/kg/day – twice their UL.
Erdal S, Buchanan SN. A quantitative look at fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and intake in children using a health risk assessment approach. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719
Although these public-health researchers favored fluoridation, they had to admit, “This raises questions about the continued need for fluoridation in the U.S. municipal water supply.”
The solubility of calcium fluoride in water is 0.0017 g/100 mL, which gives a free fluoride ion concentration of 8.3 ppm, so 0.7 ppm is nowhere near saturated. That’s too difficult for you, is it?
Evidently you don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation. Your unsubstantiated guess remains an unsubstantiated guess.
That has got to be one of the strangest claims I have ever read.
After pointing out that there was no correlation between a known impact of fluoride exposure and fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland, I get accused of not understanding the difference between correlation and causation.
I think my brain just asploded.
I think my brain just asploded.
LOL
The more you write, the more you make a fool of yourself. The point is that a lack of correlation does not prove a lack of causation, just as correlation does not prove causation. I have already explained that in terms of the small sample size and confounding factors, but evidently that was too difficult for you to understand, as usual.
Why should I have to lug 5 one-gallon bottles to buy RO water from Whole Foods each week? People who think fluoride reduces cavities should just add fluoride to their own water. Besides I’ve drank fluoridated water for 50 years and I still got cavities. This is one of the biggest scam and we Americans are too stupid to see through it.
It’s not a friggin convenience for me to have fluoridated water piped into my house. Instead I’m forced to go out and buy RO water. Do you think infants should be drinking fluoridated water?
Actually we don’t have a choice. Likewise, I can say if anyone wants fluoridated water then add fluoride to your drinking water. The choice is yours.
Let fact it you won’t believe a study even if it came from a valid, peer-reviewed study. You are determine to push fluoridated water onto the public even if the majority of us don’t want it. Do you think you know better than the rest of us and must force your preference on us? Or do you considered yourself the Angel of Fluoridation?
More than half the women over the age of 50 will have thyroid condition. This was not the case 100 years ago. Not even 50 years ago. What has changed? Perhaps it’s all the toxic chemicals we are wearing, breathing, drinking, eating and injecting into our bodies. This includes fluoridated water.
You think Slott cares? He’s out to save the “poor” people from cavities. The money spent on fluoridating drinking water can be better spent on better dental hygiene and diet for all children.
Fluoride is not only added to our drinking water but to many bottled water and food. Do you think fluoride should be given to infants (who don’t have teeth)? But mothers unknowingly used tapped water for infant formula. Yep – fluoride and GMOs infant formula. Nice toxic combination.
The convenience of having water piped directly to your home is offered to you, but you exercise your right to not take advantage of that convenience because you do not like the content of the water offered to you by your community. That is certainly your choice to do so.
There is no valid reason that infants should not drink fluoridated water. The only consideration with infants and fluoridated water, is mild to very mild dental fluorosis. Due to the existing fluoride content of powdered infant formula, the use of fluoridated water to reconstitute it risks mild to very mild dental fluorosis in developing teeth. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. For those parents who are concerned with even mild dental fluorosis, in spite of the decay resistance benefit, the CDC and the ADA, have suggested they use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most, if not all, of which is made with low fluoride content water.
Mild dental fluorosis is the only consideration with infants and fluoridated water. Knowing this, as well as knowing that mild dental fluorosis is of no real concern, I used fluoridated water to reconstitute powdered formula for my children when they were infants, and now do so for my grandchildren. The decay resistance benefit of fluoridated water far exceeds any concerns with barely detectable faint white straks on teeth.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You contradict yourself. On one hand you state that you have no choice. On the other you state that you exercised your right to go out and buy RO water. So, obviously, you do have a choice.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. Provide a valid, peer-reviewed study, properly cited, and I will gladly read it. The problem with antifluoridationists is that, like you, they complain that studies against fluoridation are not believed….then fail to produce any, exactly as you will fail to do. There has to be a valid study in order to believe it.
2. I don’t “push” anything. I simply correct the mounds of misinformation constantly posted online by uninformed antifluoridationists.
3. Please provide the documented statistics to support your claim that “the majority of us don’t want it”. The “majority” consists of far more people than just you and your friends.
4. In regard to fluoridation, obviously, I do know better than you and all other uninformed antifluoridationists.
5. I don’t “push” my preferences onto anyone. I simply correct the mounds of misinformation constantly posted online by uninformed antifluoridationists.
6. I do not consider myself to be the “Angel” of anything.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of fluoridated water on the thyroid, or anything else.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I don’t know. Why should you have to “lug 5 one-gallon bottles to buy RO water from Whole Foods each week”?
Your community pipes water directly into your home. That you have decided you don’t like the contents of the public water supply from which it is sourced, and therefore exercise your freedom of choice to use an alternate source, is your decision, not anyone else’s.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
when you need an Alternative medicine newburgh this surely gonna help you!