What’s the Deal With Fluoride?
July 19th, 2005 by Steve Pavlina
Email this article to a friend
Like many Americans my age, I grew up with a positive association to fluoride. Toothpaste commercials told me that fluoride helped prevent tooth decay and that I should brush my teeth with fluoride toothpaste, so I used it every day. The dentist gave me fluoride treatments for my teeth. Fluoride was also added to municipal water supplies, so drinking tap water (and anything made with it) gave me a daily dose of fluoride too. Like most other people, I assumed it must be healthy. Otherwise, why would people add it to toothpaste and water?
Many years ago though, I started hearing rumors about fluoride being potentially unhealthy. I realized I’d never looked into fluoride and didn’t really even know what it was and why I should be consuming it. I had to admit that all my knowledge of fluoride ultimately came from the people who were marketing it. People market plenty of other products that aren’t healthy (cigarettes, junk food, etc.), so why should I assume fluoride was healthy just because the marketers said it was?
So way back in 1997, I got curious and started taking a deeper look into fluoride. Today this is very easy to do because there’s plenty of info available online. I’ll share some of that info with you and provide some links so you can look into it further if you so choose. My goal is to help you consciously decide whether you wish to continue using fluoride.
What is fluoride?
The substance fluoride is technically a fluorine ion. Fluorine is a gas, and in nature it will be found bonded with other substances, forming compounds such as calcium fluoride.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance found abundantly in the earth’s crust. Consequently, it is found in natural water supplies, usually in very low levels (well below 1 part per million). Plants naturally absorb fluoride from the soil, so small amounts of fluoride compounds are present in all our food. Fluoride is also commonly used in pesticides, so plant foods grown with pesticides will have a higher concentration of fluoride.
The highest dietary concentration of fluoride occurs in animal foods and in processed foods, especially fish. Fluoride builds up in the tissues of animals. And whenever fluoridated water is used in food production, fluoride will be concentrated in the final product. The same goes for cooking with fluoridated water.
Although it is a natural substance, fluoride is highly toxic to human beings, even more so than lead. If you were to injest a mere 2-5 grams of sodium fluoride (a common ingredient in toothpaste), you would probably die. The amount of fluoride in a typical tube of fluoride toothpaste is sufficient to kill a small child if it were consumed all at once. Fluoride toothpaste contains a much higher concentration of fluoride than what is found in nature.
In the USA the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates fluoride usage.
Is fluoride necessary for health?
Not remotely. Unlike calcium or magnesium, fluoride is not an essential nutrient for your body. If you were to consume zero fluoride your entire life, you wouldn’t suffer for it. There’s no such thing as fluoride deficiency.
What is fluoride’s purported role in tooth decay?
Fluoride acts as an enzyme inhibitor. For this reason it is believed to help prevent cavities by literally poisoning the bacteria in your mouth. Unfortunately, because fluoride is so toxic, you’re taking a big risk by using it to try to prevent cavities. You not only poison the bacteria in your mouth but your other cells as well.
“Fluoride inhibits enzymes that breed acid-producing oral bacteria whose acid eats away tooth enamel. This observation is valid, but some scientists now believe that the harmful impact of fluoride on other useful enzymes far outweighs the beneficial effect on caries prevention.”
- UNICEF, Dec 1999
Fluoride only works topically. If you swallow fluoride, it won’t help your teeth at all except to the extent it touches them. So fluoride supplements are utterly worthless.
What are the risks of fluoride consumption?
Aside from the risk of death, fluoride can cause serious problems even at low levels of injestion that come from using toothpaste or mouthwash or drinking fluoridated water.
One risk is a condition known as fluorosis, caused by excessive exposure to fluoride. This comes in two kinds: dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis. Dental fluorosis occurs at a young age, and the main symptom is discolored and/or pitted teeth, but the outward signs on the teeth are believed to be linked with a deeper neurological impairment.
Skeletal fluorosis is an arthritic disease caused by a build-up of fluoride in the bones that can cause the bones to become brittle. Studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association noted that hip fractures are more common in communities that fluoridate their water supply.
Drinking fluoridated water is linked with reduced cognitive ability in children. There are also over 30 animal studies showing that fluoride is a neurotoxin which reduces learning and memory. Essentially, fluoride makes you a bit less intelligent.
If you wish to look into this further, you can find a lengthy list of health problems associated with fluoride and links to some of the research here:
Fluoride Health Effects Database
There are many more health problems than the few I’ve listed above, including kidney damage and cancer. Fluoride problems are an active area of research. A lot of new information has come out in just the past decade.
Why did people start adding fluoride to toothpaste and water?
You don’t want to know. Really you don’t.
But if you do, you can start by reading these articles:
Industry and Fluoridation
Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb
And if you really want to hurt yourself, you can read all about the fluoride fraud here:
Suppression of Scientific Dissent on Fluoride’s Risks and Benefits
If you don’t want to read the above, the bottom line is that fluoride is an industrial pollutant which became a serious problem several decades ago, and this problem was essentially solved by devising ways to feed the stuff to humans. Today it’s become a difficult issue that involves big business, large sums of money, the ADA, the FDA, and somewhere near the bottom of the political food chain… health.
What about water fluoridation?
Water fluoridation is common practice in the USA. About 60% of the U.S. water supply is now fluoridated. My city of Las Vegas started fluoridating its water supply a few years ago (in what was apparently something of a political fiasco).
The last time I checked, water fluoridation was banned in Japan, China, India, and most European countries. What’s interesting though is that in Europe the levels of tooth decay are no worse than in the USA. In both the U.S. and Europe, the levels of tooth decay have been falling at about the same rate for decades. Fortunately for non-U.S. residents, the politics of fluoride which have infected the U.S. have not similarly infected the rest of world.
The theoretical reason for water fluoridation is that it supposedly helps prevent tooth decay. The problem, however, is that the theory just doesn’t hold true. There’s no evidence that water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay at all. The evidence in fact shows that fluoridation has no effect whatsoever on tooth decay, but fluoridation does cause other health problems such as fluorosis.
“All of the recent large-scale studies on fluoridation and tooth decay show that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay. Studies from New Zealand, Canada, Europe, and the US have confirmed no difference in decay rates for permanent teeth of residents of fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.” (source)
“In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all - that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”
- Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice-President, Headquarters Union, US Environmental Protection Agency, March 26, 2001
“I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history.”
- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine
So what are the health reasons for water fluoridation? There aren’t any. The real reason for fluoridation is a combination of business and politics. The health claims are largely used to draw attention away from the real reason. In the USA it isn’t so hard to get fluoridation policies passed in new cities simply by leveraging the previous marketing work that has been done in favor of fluoride. Communities will vote in favor of fluoridation because most of the people doing the voting don’t know any better. People will emotionally defend something as true which deep down they never understood.
What about bottled water?
It depends on the source. Most water from natural springs will have on the order of 0.1 ppm fluoride, which is about 10% of the level found in fluoridated municipal water supplies. So with bottled water your exposure to this toxin is greatly reduced.
Be aware that some bottled water delivery companies do fluoridate their water. I called two of them to ask: Sparkletts and Arrowhead. Sparkletts told me they do fluoridate their water. Of course I let them know that I would never be a customer of theirs as long as they do so. Arrowhead told me they do NOT deliver fluoridated water unless the customer specifically requests it. Consquently, I have been an Arrowhead customer for many years. If I find out that they’ve started fluoridating their water, they will lose my family as a customer.
If you want to know whether or not your water contains fluoride, call the company and ask them how much fluoride is in their water and whether or not they add fluoride to it. They will be able to tell you how many parts per million of fluoride their water contains.
One fluoride-related web site suggested specifically avoiding Trinity Springs water because it contains a very high concentration of fluoride, on the order of 4 ppm. That’s about 4x the level you’ll get from fluoridated tap water.
You can also use a water filter to reduce fluoride from tap water. In this case you will need a reverse-osmosis filter, which will remove 90%+ of the fluoride. Distillation will also remove fluoride from water.
Is there such a thing as non-fluoride toothpaste?
Yes, absolutely.
Fluoride is not the ingredient in toothpaste that cleans your teeth. It is the abrasive calcium carbonate that does most of the cleaning. Fluoride’s only role is to poison the bacteria (and of course the rest of you gets poisoned in the process). Additionally, commercial toothpastes often contain sweeteners that can actually promote tooth decay.
I can recommend a couple brands of fluoride-free toothpaste which I’ve been using for years: Nature’s Gate and Tom’s of Maine. You should be able to find these at any health food store. I buy them at Whole Foods and Wild Oats.
My personal favorite is Nature’s Gate Herbal Creme de Peppermint. My wife prefers Tom’s of Maine. Tom’s of Maine also has children’s fluoride-free toothpaste available, which our 5-year old daughter uses. Both of these companies are cruelty-free as well, meaning they don’t test any of their products on animals.
These toothpastes are made from all-natural ingredients, and they don’t contain extra sweeteners. One thing I like about Tom’s of Maine is that they list all the ingredients on the box along with a description of what each thing is and why it’s there.
My wife also wrote a short review of Nature’s Gate toothpaste on her web site many years ago. One thing she noted was that because of the lack of sugar, it took us a few days to get used to these toothpastes. But after that we never looked back.
What about dentists?
I challenge you to ask your own dentist for detailed information on fluoride. Test his/her knowledge of this subject, and see if the answers you get make you more confident or more doubtful.
Ask your dentist to tell you exactly what fluoride is and what the lethal dosage is. Ask your dentist where the fluoride in their toothpaste and fluoride treatments originally comes from (trust me — you really don’t want to know). Ask your dentist how s/he came to believe that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay. Ask your dentist to tell you about the dangers of fluoride exposure. Ask your dentist to tell you where you can obtain the proof that fluoride usage is safe and effective.
Wouldn’t you expect your dentist to know this information?
Personally I have never met a dentist who knew even the most basic facts about fluoride. Dentists apparently learn about fluoride from the same people that market it to consumers. Most likely your dentist doesn’t know much more about fluoride than you do aside from the information that’s been provided to them by marketers. In fact, simply by reading this article, you probably know a lot more about fluoride than your dentist does, unless your dentist happens to be exceptional.
What should you do?
I think you should look into this for yourself and make your own conscious decision.
Look beyond the fluoride marketing hype and decide if fluoride is something you want to put into your body on a regular basis. Common sense suggests that you shouldn’t ingest such a toxic substance unless you fully understand what you’re doing. Remember that you have no dietary need for fluoride, so if you have any doubt, leave it out. In my opinion that’s the safest bet.
Fluoride is not addictive, so I think you’ll find it easy to do without. You may even notice some health benefits in doing so. Who knows? Maybe your IQ will even go up a few points — that effect is certainly conceivable given that fluoride is a neurotoxin and has been linked to reduced IQ in children.
At the very least, doctors recommend not using fluoridated water to make infant formula. Don’t give young children any fluoridated water if you can avoid it. Fluoride’s toxicity is relative to body mass. So the smaller the person, the more toxic a particular dose will be. Consider nature’s example — the level of fluoride found in human breast milk is about 100 times lower than in fluoridated water (i.e. 0.01 ppm vs. 1.0 ppm).
My viewpoint is that if you want to convince me to injest a toxic substance on a regular basis, the burden of proof is all yours. By default I’m not going to take poison, so if you can’t provide rock-solid evidence that your substance is worth consuming, you won’t convince me. And fluoride is a substance where the mountain of evidence has convinced me I’m better off without it.
You don’t need to poison yourself just to try to prevent cavities. I hope you can begin to see the insanity in that approach. If you have excessive bacteria eating away your tooth enamel, realize that it’s a sign of a greater imbalance in your body. Don’t try to correct the imbalance by poisoning the symptoms (i.e. the bacterial growth). Address the root cause. By reducing the acidity of your diet, you can safely prevent your teeth from dissolving. Especially cut out refined sugar and coffee if you can, and eat more raw fruits and vegetables.
If you aren’t going to change your diet, at least acknowledge that tooth decay is not the worst health problem in the world. Even if you do get cavities, it’s a fixable problem, and in my opinion, it’s not worth taking poison to try to prevent one problem and cause yourself far greater grief in the long run. You might miss your teeth, but I think you’ll miss your brain, bones, and kidneys even more.
I want to look into this further. Hook me up.
First, you can start with a simple Google search on fluoride or on such terms as “fluoride toxic poison” (without the quotes), and you’ll find plenty of sites to look through.
Here are a couple of my favorite fluoride sites with loads of articles, information, and research references:
The Fluoride Debate
Fluoride Action Network
At the very least, I recommend you read the home page of The Fluoride Debate site to give yourself a nice overview. But you will certainly learn a lot by diving deeply into both of these sites.
There are also some books on the subject (you can find both at Amazon):
The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson and Theo Colborn
Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death by Barry Groves
I just can’t believe any of this. It’s too unbelievable.
I’m sorry to be the one to shatter your blissful fluoride fantasy. Really, I am. I know you’ll probably curse me the next time you pick up your toothpaste and see a tube of IQ-lowering poison instead of sugary cavity-fighting bliss.
I’m just the messenger though. I didn’t invent any of this information. And my goal isn’t to convince you not to use fluoride. My goal is far more insidious — it is to encourage you to think for yourself and make decisions more consciously, whether you agree with me or not.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:13 am
I live in France and we don’t have fluoride in tap water.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Steve, mainstream toothpastes don’t contain sugar, they contain saccharin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin). Based on my understanding, bacteria in your mouth can’t eat this, or can they? My knowledge of chemistry isn’t very extensive.
As for fluoride, you are correct that it is used as a poison in high concentrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flouride#Higher_concentrations). “In high concentrations fluoride compounds are toxic. 5 grams of sodium fluoride will kill most adult humans. A lethal dose is approximately 75mg per kilogram body mass.” It must be noted though that toothpaste I have at home says “Active ingredient: Sodium fluoride 0.24% (0.15% w/v fluoride ion)” which is a pretty tiny amount compared to the lethal dose, especially for an adult. This explains why nobody dies from brushing their teeth at least.
Thanks for posting the info and fluoride toothpaste alternatives. I belong to the group of people who think that the FDA exists to actually protect us from bad things, but I guess I hold the government in too high of a regard.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Whatever conclusion people come up with I think that questioning previously assumed beliefs is the only way we can move forward at all as a society. Good Job, Steve!
July 19th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Very interesting. I always thought this was a conspiracy theory, but now I am convinced that flouride may not be a good thing. I am on the fence about how important it is however. Thanks for posting on this and giving us some information.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
“All of the recent large-scale studies on fluoridation and tooth decay show that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay. Studies from New Zealand, Canada, Europe, and the US have confirmed no difference in decay rates for permanent teeth of residents of fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.”
I don’t pretend to have the understanding required to know if or not fluoride is has health effects, but I do question this quote.
I live in Christchurch, New Zealand. The largest city in NZ that does not fluoridate its water (or treat it in any way — our water is supposed to be cleaner than bottled water because of where it is sourced). The topic of adding fluoride to our water often pops up in the news.
Now like everywhere else, there are people for and against this. But coincidence or not, Christchurch kids are constantly reported as having the worst teeth in the country.
Speak of the devil, here is a related story from a couple of days ago (Asburton is an hours drive south of Christchurch).
http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/index.asp?articleid=5325
The thing is, this will probably go in circles like cell phones. Googling for that, I found reports that said it was found fluoride does have no effect. But I’ve not found any that explain why Christchurch should be so much worse than anywhere else. To blame it on sugar doesn’t explain why Christchurch should be any different to any other city here.
Ah well, what I do know is that I’ve already spent $800 on dental care this year, but that was a result of drinking too much coke and eating too much sugar as a teen.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Unlike the microwave bit, I am neutral to slightly in agreement with this. Again, my background in chemistry - fluoride ions would tend to bond extremely well with calcium ions. This, in principle, could leech calcium from teeth and bones at the least. I don’t know enough about brain chemistry - sadly outside my area - but I can also see how perhaps the ions in nerve channels (sodium, potassium, I forget if calcium is there too) would also bond well with fluoride, which might account for decreased IQ.
That said, I just don’t know for sure, unlike the previous article.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
I heard recently that a study determined the worst thing for teeth enamel is chewing vitamin C tablets!
July 19th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Just because it is on Google doesn’t make it true. If you want to do research on issues such as this you are better off looking at http://scholar.google.com , or at Pubmed ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed ). Here you will find peer-reviewed scientific articles rather than baseless scaremongering.
“There’s no evidence that water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay at all.”. I find this quote utterly ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence showing otherwise. Not just through the effect on enzymes in the mouth, but also through promoting remineralization on the tooth’s surface. Any good points you have in your article are weakened by inaccuracies such as this.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Well, that was really a shock!
Still, I can’t find any toothpaste without that flouride in it. Seems like a conspiracy of greater countries against our people
July 19th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
> I just can’t believe any of this. It’s too unbelievable.
>
> I’m sorry to be the one to shatter your blissful fluoride
> fantasy. Really, I am. I know you’ll probably curse me
> the next time you pick up your toothpaste and see a
> tube of IQ-lowering poison instead of sugary cavity-
> fighting bliss.
I can’t believe this would sway any intelligent reader. Up until this, the argument is well-considered. But this is just browbeating the audience.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
I live over in the UK. One city here; Manchester, did not fluoridate their tap water. I’m not sure if they do now. The children there are reported to have the worst teeth in the coutry. Here’s an excerpt from a British Medical Association article:
“For example, 5-year-olds in non-fluoridated Manchester suffer almost two and a half times more tooth decay than those in fluoridated Birmingham”
and from another site:
“GREATER Manchester has topped the chart for the most rotten teeth in Britain”
Now this seems just a little too much of a coincedence to me. So, I’ll stick to my normal toothpaste, and drinking my fluoridated tap water.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
When my daughter was born in 1983 it was the “right thing” to give kids fluoride tablets. She had very badly discolored teeth, which thankfully have come right over the years. When my son was born in 1988 we decided not to give him the tablets and he had no discoloration problems.
However, the whole family has used fluoride toothpaste over this period. I have always regarded this as a good thing because my wife and I had terrible problems with tooth decay when we were young, but neither of the kids have had any decay at all.
If the difference between the decay rates is not due to fluoride what could it be? I don’t see any major shift in diet, so I always attributed it to the toothpaste.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
I’ve heard that some toothpastes also contain Dihydrogen Monoxide, a powerful solvent that will cause death if ingested in high quantities.
http://www.dhmo.org/
July 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
Basically, tooth decay is yet another consequence of poverty. 80% of all tooth decay occurs in 20% of the population - poor and minorities - the same group that suffers the most health problems.
The dental crisis America faces today is lack of dental care to those who need it the most. Most dentists refuse to treat people on government insurance, such as Mediciaid, and won’t travel to rural areas.
Lack of fluoride doesn’t cause tooth decay; but poor diet does.
Dentists once predicted they would put themselves out of business by encouraging fluoridation. But today’s dentists make much more than physicans , while working fewer days and fewer hours.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I France the topic of fluoridate water has never been discussed.
For french, fluoride only came with toothpaste.
We’ll never been agree with fluoridate water because, for us, it’s totally stupid and we have never heard about this.
Before reading this post, i didn’t know that in some countries tap water was fluoridated.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:17 am
Vitamin C is an acid. That attacks the teeth.
About floride, I don’t know.. I’m sure that in large quantities it is dangerous, but in very low dosages such as the ones in the tap water, it may not do any damage.
In my country they add Clor (Cl) to the water in order to kill bacteria.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:56 am
Here some living proof that you don’t need flouride: I am 31 years old and grew up drinking well water (no extra flouride added). I was rarely allowed to eat candy or drink sugared drinks, and took notes from my parents to school with me to tell my teacher that I was not allowed to take the flouride supplements they gave out on a regular basis at school. (They came around with carts of Dixie cups full of flouride the kids were supposed to swish like mouthwash.)
Today, I have incredibly healthy teeth.
Another toothpaste that my husband and I like is Burt’s Bees Lavender Mint. It is not only free of flouride, but also free of Sodium Laureth/Lauryl Sulfate. See http://www.lindachae.com/SLS_and_SLES.htm for more information on this substance.
~Julie
July 20th, 2005 at 6:33 am
Simon, are we pulling our leg? Dihydrogen Monoxide AFAIK is also commonly known as water…
July 20th, 2005 at 6:59 am
Please please please, anyone who is on the fence about removing dental hygeine-appropriate concentrations of fluoride from their diet, please read the following link first.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
“Don’t Be Misled
As a public health measure, fluoridation is unusual in several ways. It is a copy of a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is supported by libraries full of articles that document its safety and effectiveness — more so than any other public health measure. It is supported by a variety of health, scientific, and civic groups that could hardly be expected to agree on any other single measure. But most significant, it is the only health measure that is often put to public vote.
If you live in a community with fluoridated water, consider yourself lucky. If you do not, don’t let the poisonmongers scare you. Fluoridation is still a modern health miracle.”
I’m still hurting from my trip to the dentist this morning. Due to my “insufficient fluoride during childhood, resulting in enormous holes in my teeth”-related agony, I am going to be a bit impolite:
I’m sorry, but anyone who voluntarily abandons flouride in concentrations appropriate for proper dental hygeine is a credulous fool.
“I challenge you to ask your own dentist for detailed information on fluoride.” - My dentist is a D.M.D. and Ph.D. He can explain the workings of fluoride at length. If you have questions, please let me know and I will pass them on.
“My viewpoint is that if you want to convince me to injest a toxic substance on a regular basis, the burden of proof is all yours. By default I’m not going to take poison, so if you can’t provide rock-solid evidence that your substance is worth consuming, you won’t convince me. And fluoride is a substance where the mountain of evidence has convinced me I’m better off without it.”
By that standard, you should also avoid zinc. Zinc is an essential nutrient. Zinc is also toxic when taken in absurd concentrations.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/cc/zinc.html#rda
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/cc/zinc.html#risks
“Zinc toxicity has been seen in both acute and chronic forms. Intakes of 150 to 450 mg of zinc per day have been associated with low copper status, altered iron function, reduced immune function, and reduced levels of high-density lipoproteins (the good cholesterol)”
Summary: eliminating fluoride from your dental hygeine practices is foolish. You are greatly increasing your risk of known and proven health problems. Please do not encourage other people to do this.
July 20th, 2005 at 7:09 am
As many of you may not know, the Associated Press released a story published in The Washington Post on 7/13/05, exposing a potential research scandal at Harvard University. It involved suppressed findings from a doctoral thesis showing a strong link between fluoridated water and a higher incidence of bone cancer in young boys. This study supports earlier government studies and is considered, “…the most rigorous human study to date on a possible connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma…” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201277_pf.html/
The Harvard professor being investigated, is a consultant for Colgate. ‘Nuff said?
Check the facts at http://ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20050627/index.php
July 20th, 2005 at 7:37 am
Looks like we have a fairly controversial subject here….
FYI if you want to read more pro-fluoride info, the ADA has booklet which you can find here:
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf
The Fluoride Debate site has posted their own detailed response to these “facts.”
http://www.fluoridedebate.com
(Click the links to the Questions on the left sidebar for a point by point comparison)
I found it interesting to read both sides of the debate and to see where they agree and disagree.
For example, the ADA claims that artificial fluoridation is only mimicking the fluoride content found in natural water supplies. However, the Fluoride Debate responds by saying that artificial fluoridation has never used naturally-occurring calcium fluoride to fluoridate water supplies. Artificial fluoridation uses silicofluorides (an industrial pollutant cleaned out of smokestacks), which FD claims are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride. In other words the fluoride compounds added to human water supplies are not the same compounds found in nature. In order to mimic nature, you’d have to use calcium fluoride.
What I like about the Fluoride Debate site is that it presents the issues as a two-sided debate, so you get to see the pro and con arguments together point by point. After reading it I felt I had a reasonable understanding of both sides of the issue, but generally I felt the ADA “fluoride facts” were misleading because they leave out too much information that I feel is necessary to understand the big picture. It reads too much like a propaganda piece.
July 20th, 2005 at 8:44 am
@Axiom: I read the Quackwatch page, but honestly there’s not much substance there. It seems to spend most of its text trying to accuse those opposed to fluoridation of using the tactics that those in favor of it have been using (i.e. fearmongering). It doesn’t even address the real issues or facts with respect to fluoridation.
In my opinion the Quackwatch page actually gives more credibility to the fluoride opposition because of the side-stepping nature of its arguments. A common pattern in political debates is that if the facts aren’t on your side, you simply attempt to smear those who possess the facts by making an appeal to the emotions. Of course we see this in political campaigns all the time. About 2/3 of the Quackwatch page could be generalized into a template for this sort of thing.
But regardless of what silly tactics are used in any debate, truth is truth. And when you take the time to look behind the emotionalism and especially “follow the money” to attempt to develop an understanding of the motives of all involved parties, I think it makes it easier to develop a sense of where the real truth likely falls.
In my opinion the potential risks of fluoridation simply outweigh any potential benefits. The “scientific” evidence in favor of fluoridation is unconvincing at best, and certainly there are profit and political motives for doing it that complicate looking at it from a pure health standpoint.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:05 am
@Axiom: I do have a few question for your dentist:
- Why are silicofluorides (i.e. industrial pollutants) used for artificial fluoridation instead of naturally occurring calcium fluoride, especially since silicofluorides are supposedly far more toxic and are not found in nature?
- Who decided that industrial smokestacks would be the source of fluoride for human consumption, especially considering that the fluoride taken from these sources is loaded with other toxins like lead and arsenic?
- Why do Japan, China, India, and most of Europe have laws banning fluoridation?
- Given that fluoride works as a toxin even at very low concentrations and that its function in preventing tooth decay is to kill bacteria, what effect does this toxin have on other cells in the human body?
- Who stands to gain the most from artificial fluoridation, and how will they gain? Who stands to gain the most from banning it, and how will they gain?
July 20th, 2005 at 9:26 am
The Quackwatch document contains a dissection of anti-fluoridation propaganda. It serves as an explanation of the logical fallacies and scare tactics presented by those opposed to fluoride.
For example, comparing some of your remarks above to quotes from the document:
SP: “It doesn’t even address the real issues or facts with respect to fluoridation.”
QW: “Recent data have shown that fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults.”
That is a clear and specific statement. Even better, it’s falsifiable.
SP: “In my opinion the Quackwatch page actually gives more credibility to the fluoride opposition because of the side-stepping nature of its arguments.”
Quotations from the Quackwatch document showing the parallel between some of your specific statements in original post and in response:
QW: “The antifluoridationists’ (”antis”) basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them — because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.”
QW: “Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances — even pure water — can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone.”
QW: “Innuendo is a technique that has broad appeal because it can be used in a seemingly unemotional pitch. Some antis admit that fluoridation has been found safe “so far,” but claim that its long-range effects have “not yet” been fully explored.”
Finally,
SP: “In my opinion the potential risks of fluoridation simply outweigh any potential benefits. The “scientific” evidence in favor of fluoridation is unconvincing at best, and certainly there are profit and political motives for doing it that complicate looking at it from a pure health standpoint.”
The problem with opinions in a scientific discussion is that they are irrelevant. Fluoride works. If you choose not to use it, that is a choice, one that I feel is akin to playing the lottery with out of date tickets.
The scientific evidence in favor of fluoridation is conclusive and measurable. It is not a subject for emotional debate. It is a matter of numbers. You can argue that 15% - 35% reduction in cavities simply by adjusting the water supply is or is not a useful reduction. You cannot, however, argue that we should change the value of the number 15 or 35.
Remarking on “profit” and “political motives” are pure Innuendo and Conspiracy Gambit: by mentioning them without support, you are actually using at least two of the many tactics described specifically in the Quackwatch document.
In closing, Steve Dutch says it best: “What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?” at the top of each of his pages. One of the best is here: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm
July 20th, 2005 at 10:13 am
@Axiom:
“Recent data have shown that fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults.”
So let’s see it. What’s the source? Where was it published? Who funded it?
“What evidence would it take to prove my beliefs wrong?”
In this case I have more doubt than belief. So I suppose the question for me would be, “What would it take for me to let go of my doubts about fluoride enough to opt to consume it?”
By default I’m not going to consume an artificially manufacturerd substance that is know to be toxic without a darn good reason. And I still haven’t seen a darn good reason to do so. Can you provide me with one?
What would I consider a darn good reason for consuming artificial fluoride compounds that aren’t found in nature? I would have to see data clearly indicating that the benefits of fluoride consumption in the form and the levels actually added to human water supplies (i.e. about 1 ppm silicofluorides) outweigh the risks. If you have such data or know where it is, I’m all ears.
Fluoride is not a one-shot toxin. It builds up in the tissues, and it’s long-term effects are cumulative. So I’d need to see data on the long-term cumulative effects of artificial fluoride consumption, and I’d want those studies funded and managed by independent parties, not by those with a financial or political stake in the results. To me that means we’d need at least a 10-year study on reasonably sized groups.
I don’t actually need a belief not to consume fluoride, just a bit of doubt. I’d need a pretty strong belief to consume it, but not to avoid it. So personally I don’t need more certainty about fluoride’s harmful effects because I have enough doubt to dictate that the logical course of action for me is to avoid it. More certainty on the anti-fluoride side won’t change my actions. What would be required to change my actions would be more certainty on the pro-fluoride side, sufficient to remove any reasonable doubt. As long as I have reasonably doubt, my course of action will be to do without artificial fluoride in my diet.
If you consume artificial fluoride on a regular basis, then I assume you must have far more certainty than I about its safety. If so, what persuaded you that artificial silicofluorides are safe for human consumption?
Then again maybe I’m just being overly squeamish about drinking stuff scrubbed out of industrial smokestacks.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:31 am
It seems that we can address several of these points quickly:
SP: “Why are silicofluorides (i.e. industrial pollutants) used for artificial fluoridation instead of naturally occurring calcium fluoride, especially since silicofluorides are supposedly far more toxic and are not found in nature?”
http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/pdf/flequip.pdf
Sodium silicofluorides are used in mid-sized community systems (10,000-25,000 people) in dry fluoride feeders. It’s a powder, easily transportable and here is one supplier that I could find quickly: http://www.pelchem.com/sodium_silicofluoride.html
Here is the material data sheet: http://www.pelchem.com/pdf/Na2SiF6-MSDS.pdf
It certainly does not give evidence of a dramatic evidence in toxicity.
Regarding “are not found in nature”: that’s an awfully bold statement. Are you certain that sodium silicofluorides never occur anywhere else? Ever?
SP: “Who decided that industrial smokestacks would be the source of fluoride for human consumption, especially considering that the fluoride taken from these sources is loaded with other toxins like lead and arsenic?”
Are you really asking my dentist a question here? This sounds much more like thinly veiled innuendo. In actuality, sodium silicofluorides are usually a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers: http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/misc/fluoridation/chapter2.pdf
If you’re actually worried about lead or arsenic in your water, I would be to. I recommend that you test for those chemicals specifically.
SP: “Why do Japan, China, India, and most of Europe have laws banning fluoridation?”
Are you asking my dentist a question here? I do not know if the above implied statement is true but I can think of one quick reason: their anti-fluoridation lobby is more powerful than it is here in America. How are the teeth of those citizens doing? My Indian friends say, colloquially, “Quite poorly.”
SP: “Given that fluoride works as a toxin even at very low concentrations and that its function in preventing tooth decay is to kill bacteria, what effect does this toxin have on other cells in the human body?”
That isn’t how fluoride works to protect teeth. See here http://www.bfsweb.org/documents/howfworks.htm for discussion of the bacteria-related effect:
“The third way in which fluoride works is by reducing the ability of the plaque bacteria to produce acid. This is a major factor in the prevention of tooth decay. It results from the ability of the plaque bacteria to concentrate the low levels of fluoride at the tooth surface up to a level which inhibits the function of some enzymes which are essential to the bacteria’s ability to produce acid.”
SP: “Who stands to gain the most from artificial fluoridation, and how will they gain? Who stands to gain the most from banning it, and how will they gain?”
Again, are you asking my dentist a question? The answer to the first is the citizens: “In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.” (see here http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html).
Regarding the “gain the most from banning” question: how is this a question for a dentist? Personally, I see this as a convenient political axe for an unscrupulous person to grind.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:48 am
“So let’s see it. What’s the source? Where was it published? Who funded it?”
Perhaps this is a better / less emotional document: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf
It contains the specific references that you are looking for. At present, I do not have direct access to all of the publications cited online but they are specified in the bibliography.
“Then again maybe I’m just being overly squeamish about drinking stuff scrubbed out of industrial smokestacks.”
Again, this is an implied innuendo. Please see Q44 and Q45 in the above document.
Your choice of drinking water is, of course, your choice. I feel that you are making a mistake and an enormous amount of data supports that conclusion.
I sincerely wish that I could have received the appropriate doses of fluoride when I was a child. My teeth are reminding me most painfully today that my children have options and resources that I did not.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:30 am
If the “safe” alternative to drinking fluoride-laced water is drinking bottled water, there should be some cause for concern. Bottled water is one of the most wasteful products in the modern world. The mass of extra plastic used in its packaging, not to mention fossil fuels burned in its transport, makes the slight (if even real) personal risk of drinking municipal water a bad trade-off when compared with the larger environmental damage promoted by the also greedy bottled water pushers, who, after all, promote the strong emotional fear that humans have of “contaminated” water in order to make crazy profits.
Apparently, the money spent on bottled water in North America, would more than cover the costs of providing safe drinking water to the whole world. I don’t have a source for this other than a radio interview a while back, but should this likely scenario be true, it’s food for thought.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Fluoridated cities can have extremely high levels of cavities. It has more to do with poverty than any other factor. In fact, two of the states in the US with the most fluoridation (near 100%) fluoridation has SOME OF THE WORST TEETH!
Below are some references showing high decay rates in fluoridated communities.
Cincinnati - Fluoridated since 1979:
“City and regional medical officials say tooth decay is the city’s No. 1 unmet health-care need. ‘We cannot meet the demand,’ says Dr. Larry Hill, Cincinnati Health Department dental director. ‘It’s absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty. We have kids in this community with severe untreated dental infections. We have kids with self-esteem problems, and we have kids in severe pain and we have no place to send them in Cincinnati. People would be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become.’”
SOURCE: Solvig E. (2002). Cincinnati’s dental crisis. The Cincinnati Enquirer October 6. (See article)
Concord, NH - Fluoridated since 1978:
“It’s overwhelming,” said Deb Bergschneider, dental clinic coordinator at the Concord center. “Because we serve the uninsured, we see the lower level of the community and the need is just astronomical. … By the time they get to us, their mouths are bombed out. They are all emergency situations. It’s a severe, severe, problem. It’s sad.”
SOURCE: Gerth U. (2005). Nothing to smile about. Fosters Daily Democrat, May 22. (See article)
Boston - Fluoridated since 1978:
“With a study estimating that the number of untreated cavities among Boston students greatly exceeds the national average, public health officials are about to launch an offensive against what they say is a growing dental crisis in the city… According to statistics cited in the city’s latest annual health report, ”The Health of Boston 1999”: Eighteen percent of children 4 years old and younger who were seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby-bottle tooth decay, a painful condition that arises when a baby is given a bottle of juice or milk at bedtime. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. About 90 percent of 107 Boston high school students were found to need dental treatment, according to a 1996 unpublished study. That report also estimated that the city’s students had four times more untreated cavities than the national average…”
SOURCE: Kong D. (1999). City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’. Boston Globe November 27. (See article)
Connecticut - Statewide mandatory fluoridation since 1960s:
“Dental decay remains the most common chronic disease among Connecticut’s children. Poor oral health causes Connecticut children to lose hundreds of thousands of school days each year. One in four Connecticut children is on Medicaid, but two of three Connecticut children receive no dental care. And DSS continues to exploit the seriously stretched public health providers and the few remaining private providers. There is an oral health crisis in Connecticut.”
SOURCE: Slate R. (2005). State must fund plan to provide oral health care for the poor. New Haven Register May 5. (See article)
South Bronx - Fluoridated since 1965:
“Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for the children I have interviewed in the South Bronx. Children get used to feeling constant pain. They go to sleep with it. They go to school with it. Sometimes their teachers are alarmed and try to get them to a clinic. But it’s all so slow and heavily encumbered with red tape and waiting lists and missing, lost or canceled welfare cards, that dental care is often long delayed. Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. The gradual attrition of accepted pain erodes their energy and aspiration. I have seen children in New York with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have also seen teen-agers who were missing half their teeth. But, to me, most shocking is to see a child with an abscess that has been inflamed for weeks and that he has simply lived with and accepts as part of the routine of life. Many teachers in the urban schools have seen this. It is almost commonplace.”
SOURCE: Kozol J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. Harper Perennial.
Pittsburgh, PA - Fluoridated since 1953:
“Nearly half of children in Pittsburgh between 6 and 8 have had cavities, according to a 2002 state Department of Health report. More than 70 percent of 15-year-olds in the city have had cavities, the highest percentage in the state. Close to 30 percent of the city’s children have untreated cavities. That’s more than double the state average of 14 percent.”
SOURCE: Law V. (2005). Sink your teeth into health care. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review February 13.
Washington DC - Fluoridated since 1952:
Washington DC has “one of the highest decay rates in children in the country.” The “typical new patient, age 6, has five or six teeth with cavities — a ’staggering” number’” at the Children’s National Medical Center.
SOURCE: Morse S. (2002). Bottled Water: Just add Fluoride. Washington Post March 5. (See article)
July 20th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
RE:
Axiom Says:
July 20th, 2005 at 9:26 am
1. QW: “Recent data have shown that fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults.”
1. CLEAR AND SPECIFIC FALSIFIABLE RESPONSE: Back that up with evidence. The largest dental survey ever conducted in the United States found a difference of 0.6 of a tooth surface out of 128 surfaces in the mouth was saved by water fluoridation (published in 1990). Because tooth decay is so low, that amounts to 18%. So, what is really less than a difference of 0.5% of the tooth surfaces in the mouth is presented in a way which makes it sound significant. I believe it is not. In this multi-million dollar study, the researchers did not report any statistical analysis to show that the difference they found matters at all.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/ifin-290.htm
2. “side-stepping nature of its arguments”
2. RESPONSE: Nothing like associating your opponents with Hitler to side step the nature of the argument, huh?
3. “poison is a matter of dose…But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone”
3. RESPONSE: Does increased lead in you and your childrens blood cause harm? In 2000, Dartmouth researchers found that living in an area with fluoridated water made it more likely that you would have dangerous levels of lead in your blood.
“RESULTS: For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11233755&query_hl=6
I believe that is harm. What about bone cancer?
“Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma. The association was most apparent between ages 5-10, with a peak at six to eight years of age.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201277.html
And now, I ask you, Axiom: “What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?”
If you would like to have more discourse on this subject matter I would be happy to.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
“Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma. The association was most apparent between ages 5-10, with a peak at six to eight years of age.”
This is hearsay. Neither you (I believe) nor I have seen this study or the dissertation associated.
This story is tainted by the “(government) supression” conspiracy theory. If this study is valid enough to stand up to public scrutiny, let it be published in peer reviewed journal(s). The fact that it has not been published in the years since the dissertation is an indication that any correlation proposed is weak.
Re: beliefs: If there were a demonstrated correlation between fluoride and bone cancer, that would certainly be worth considering. I happen to know an expert in biostatistics (Ph.D.) who specializes in cancer research. If she tells me that there’s a risk, I’d consider that a valid source.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
I have been trying to swim through the issues on this debate. There are lines of arguments that sound like pure propaganda attempting to pry at the emotions of readers like me.
For example, the argument is always used that the fluoride in water comes from scrubbing of smokestacks. Looking into this, i was able to learn that in fact the industry by product that is talked about is claimed from a salt type material that would be spread on the ground, not used. Framing it as someone going in, scrubbing the stack and then dropping it in the water is clearly a tactic to portray something in a more frightening way. I would imagine that if you eliminated all by products from industry, there would be many, many useful products no longer available.
Aside from this, another issue i have is the constant use of the Harvard Study as pure fact of a cover up, and using it as evidence (just as the last poster did). I am fairly educated, and knew i should read what was available of this thesis. First of all, the entire thesis is not available. The assumptions that are made are based on incomplete access to material. Second, the material isn’t yet published. Third, the author herself provides many statements of reservations about her findings, her sample size, and her results, and clearly states that other studies should be completed. I dont understand how the authors own words seem to never find their way to these discussions.
I have some friends at Harvard, and was able to learn that advisor and student still have a close professional relationship, despite all these claims. It just seems that in the way that certain groups (I will keep mum on names, and won’t mention certain chemistry professors) are jumping all over this, and especially before the investigation is complete, it makes them look more fanatical than anything. I have never once heard, “we look forward to the results of the investigation, or the entire published article”, which would be the more responsible thing to do. Its these types of tactics by those who are opposed to water fluoridation, or anyone for that matter, that lowers their credibility, in my opinion.
It’s the nature of the internet and discussions like this, to hear much more negative than positive about any topic.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
One of the things I find so comical (if not so tragic) about the fluoridation issue, is the repetition of the CDC’s claim that fluoridation is one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century. Hmmm…. If this was truly the case, shouldn’t there be at least some evidence of an adverse health outcome in Europe? Europe has largely abandoned the idea of fluoridating water, yet has experieneced the same decline in tooth decay as the U.S. According to data from the World Health Organization, childhood tooth decay rates are now as low, in some cases lower, in Europe than the U.S. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
The fact of the matter is that - contrary to the belief foisted upon us 50 years ago that fluoride needed to be ingested to be effective - it is now known that fluoride DOES NOT NEED TO BE SWALLOWED. It’s effects are almost strictly topical. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html
But, nonetheless, we still have the same kind of narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned, so-called “experts” ridiculing anyone who dares question this policy. The ignorance and arrogance at play is breathtaking and tragic.
By the way, for those who still view the CDC as an apolitical institution that can handle adverse data honestly, I recommend checking out the new book “Evidence of Harm” (St Martins Press, 2005) by former New York Times journalist David Kirby. The book discusses the thimerosal controversy, and its descriptions of the CDC’s handling of the issue is eye-opening indeed.
As with fluoridation, the CDC has spent a great deal more energy protecting public health policy than it has protecting public health.
I am left with one word: tragedy.
Perhaps it is wishful thinking to hope that the U.S. medical community will adopt a tiny morsel of humilty in the years ahead - especially in light of thalidomide, VIOXX, thimerosal, and hormone replacement therapy. Wishful thinking indeed.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:42 pm
Diego: yes, it’s a joke. The website (http://www.dhmo.org/) serves a useful purpose though, showing how it’s possible to make something sound much worse than it really is.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:19 am
Steve, I think you should stick to what you’re good at - personal development topics - and stay away from topics where you’re just another opinionated member of the public with no real expert knowledge or experience of the matter under discussion. Links to the web sites of a few lobby groups does not count as analysis. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have an opinion… but publicising that opinion here definitely detracts from the quality of your blog, which has otherwise been focused, interesting and informative. More posts on goal-setting, the meaning of life, etc, and less scaremongering, please!
July 21st, 2005 at 4:58 am
@Helen: My purpose isn’t to teach sheep how to be better sheep. It’s to help people live more consciously and with greater awareness. Sometimes that means giving people a kick in their complacency by pointing out some things that may lie outside their current awareness which could be important to them.
I’m well aware that people will often react negatively when someone starts interfering with their world view. Greater consciousness often requires people to confront and move through their defensiveness. I actually see it as a good sign when people call me names like “scaremonger,” since that means the person is reaching a level of higher awareness and has moved beyond denial. Better to have someone pissed at me and thinking more consciously than to like me but live unconsciously.
Back to scaremongering….
Boo!
July 21st, 2005 at 5:31 am
People, we need to protect our precious bodily fluids.
July 21st, 2005 at 5:34 am
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist the reference.
Seriously, here’s a pretty good assessment from Ronald Bailey, a science writer that I trust:
http://reason.com/rb/rb120501.shtml
July 21st, 2005 at 5:38 am
I am going to have to agree with Susan. Kicking people in their complacency is one thing, but presenting such a one sided story seems irresponsible. The majority of what you present to your readers has come directly from a known antifluoridationist site, in which many people question their true intentions. There seems to be alot more evidence against their claims, than supporting it. As i mentioned before, the word fanatic comes to mind when i read that site. (I can even wager a guess on who Michael is).
I expect you to hold an opinion, as I and others are constantly forming ours, but i was very surprised at how you presented it.
Cheers.
RM.
July 21st, 2005 at 6:56 am
[…] elopment BabyCenter’s Your Baby’s Development
Steve Pavlina in What’s the Deal With Fluoride? : …my goal isn’t to convince you […]
July 21st, 2005 at 11:29 am
Steve, we all have to die sometime, somehow…cancer,aids, accidents, fluorid poisoning. I hope the latest one is not painful
July 21st, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Steve, yet again I have to commend you for posting about a controversial health subject. I understand why many people are sceptical about negative claims against a chemical they trusted all their lives, but I believe in time, they will find their scepticism to be misguided.
I am most interested in health topics so I love it when you post about them. Keep it up.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Bill: Your reference to Dr. Strangelove might be funny if it weren’t so trite and over-used.
Also, the “Reason” piece seems little more than a puff opinion piece. There’s virtually no engagement of the scientific arguments on either side. (Interesting how so many self-described “skeptics” have difficulty aiming their “skepticism” at the status quo of large, lumbering institutions. Sort of like lap dogs for the powerful.)
July 21st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
RE: Axiom Says:
July 20th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
I too started off as a believer in fluoride; we are told it is good for us our whole life. There has been an amazing marketing campaign to sell us the idea that this stuff is good for us. In fact, Sigmund Frued’s nephew, Edward Bernays, was hired to convince the American public that fluoride is good for us back when this practice began (incidentally, he also wrote the book titled, Propaganda).
When I first started looking into this issue, I went to my local health department. They gave me a few brochures that were between 15 and 25 years old. When I looked at the primary literature for myself, I discovered many serious and blatent lies in those pamphlets. As I did more and more research, I realized how much of what the pro-fluoridation people say is propaganda without a solid scientific background. This is as true now as it was when those pamphlets were written 25 years ago.
Actually, I have read through a good deal of the Bassin thesis, and you are welcome to as well. It is very disturbing that this research did not immediately create cause for a nationwide moratorium on fluoridation pending further research. The risks are far to great and the benefit so clinically insignificant. It is not worth even one young boy’s death from Osteosarcoma to save 0.6 out of 128 tooth surfaces from decay.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/bassin-2001.pdf.
There is a particularly good section where Bassin critiques studies which came to different conclusions (namely, those vulnerable to this are young males, when you do a study and look at the population as a whole, you will not find this pattern).
Perhaps publishing this research would be contrary to the funders of the advisor (he publishes a newsletter for Colgate), and hence it has not been published.
The New Jersey Dep. of Health published research over 10 years ago:
“Recently, a national study of drinking water fluoridation at the country level found a significant association with osteosarcoma incidence among males under 20 years of age (Hoover et al., 1991). However, the meaning of the association was questioned by the authors because of the absence of a linear trend of association with the duration of time for which the water supplies were fluoridated… As a follow-up to the study by Hoover et al., a small study of similar design was initiated by the New Jersey Department of Health to compare drinking water fluoridatiuon at the municipa level with the municpal residence of osteosarcoma cases at the time of diagnosis… The study observed an association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcomas among males under 20 years of age in seven Central New Jersey counties.”
SOURCE: Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health: Environmental Health Service: 1- 17.
For a good compilation of other evidence of fluoride and osteosarcoma:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma.html
Axiom, Do you think the risk is worth the possibility of saving less then 0.5% of the tooth surfaces from decay?
Further, why have you not responded to the research showing increased absorption of lead from ingestion of fluoride? I have that article if you would like me to send it to you.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:13 pm
AXIOM:
I am very interested in your friend’s thoughts on the Bassin research. Have her take a look at it and let me know what she says.
Thanks!
July 21st, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Just who is behind fluoridealert.org?
Whois says the “Fluoride Action Network.” The organizer of which is one Dr. Paul Connett, who is NOT a medical doctor. He is a chemist, but that is a far cry from being able to claim authority on medical issues.
Oddly enough, Elahu signed one of FluorideAlert’s petitions:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm
Hardly unbiased.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Michael: I guess I must have missed all the allusions in the comments above. And the Ronald Bailey article was hardly a puff piece: it had some good links to governmental studies on the subject.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Actually, I found an overview of the dissertation discussion right here:
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter56.html#2 Some relevant snippets:
“In other words, we must take their word for it that Bassin’s research is solid and that those studies that didn’t find what she found didn’t dig deep enough into the data. However, the reasons they give for believing that the connection is highly plausible should hold for girls as well as boys. Without knowing how many subjects were in the animal studies and in Bassin’s studies, and how many individuals were afflicted with bone cancer, there is no way to assess whether the fact that both found an association with males only is of any significance. And, of course, without knowing the details of Bassin’s research, it is not possible to evaluate it.”
[snip]
“Thus, however many subjects were in Dr. Douglass’s study, Bassin’s data is a subset of that data consisting of fewer subjects. I could not discover how many subjects were in Bassin’s data by reviewing the data posted by EWG.
EWG also tells us that the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) did a study in 1991 and “found a significant association between fluoride exposure and bone cancer in boys.” In 1992 the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDH) “found that young males living in fluoridated communities had significantly higher rates of osteosarcoma than young males living in non-fluoridated areas; males 10-19 years old in fluoridated areas were 6.9 times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than those in non-fluoridated areas.”
It appears to me that EWG has an agenda and they are using the Bassin work to support that agenda. For some reason, the rest of the scientific community was not bowled over by the studies done over a decade ago. Apparently, no follow-up studies have been done and Bassin did not do her own study but mined the data of somebody else’s study to support her conclusion.”
So we’re definitely not talking about a double-blind study here, if this is the case (obviously, it can’t be blind at all if its a case of data mining).
In fact, this seems to be a case of confirmation bias (noting the positive results out of context of the negative). The missing follow-up work seems critical: for example, what is the causation for the sex link?
The lack of publication, lack of follow-up data and possible confirmation bias does not raise my confidence in these findings.
I’ll let you know when I hear back from the statistician.
July 21st, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Axiom,
While it is not yet fully understood (hormone related?), the sex-specific effect of fluoridation & bone cancer has been a common finding in the previous research on this issue.
For example, in the NTP’s animal study, it was the male rats that developed osteosarcoma not the females.
In the NCI’s 1990 analysis of the national cancer registry data, they found higher rates of osteosarcoma in young males (not females) in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated areas (albeit without a duration-dependent effect). A similar finding was found in the 1992 New Jersey Department of Health study.
Interestingly, the possibility that fluoridation may cause bone cancer in young males, not females, was first articulated by the National Academy of Sciences, as far back as 1977. In 1977, NAS scientists advised that:
“it would be important to have direct evidence that osteogenic sarcoma rates in males under 30 have not increased with fluoridation” (NAS 1977; see: http://fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma-timeline.html )
As noted recently in the Washington Post by Dr. Richard Clapp, a cancer epidemiologist at Boston University, “There’s a legitimate biological rationale for focusing on young boys.” See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201277.html
July 21st, 2005 at 5:41 pm
RE: Anonymous Says:
July 21st, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I met Paul Connett in Washington DC while I was attending the EPA sponsored forum on water fluoridation, part of my self-education on the matter. As a biochemist and molecular biologist, I know a little bit about biological toxicity. I was happy to sign the petition.
Dr. Connett has researched the issue exhaustively and is familiar with a great deal of the primary research on fluoridation.
They were wrong about smoking, DDT, leaded gasoline and on and on. What makes you so sure they are not wrong about this?
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:19 am
The StatisticianOfDoom has the following to say about the dissertation:
“The basic problem from a statistical point of view is the subset analysis of a preplanned study that failed to find significance for this endpoint. The appropriate use of subset analysis is to examine the contributions to a significant result and to determine if the differences are isolated in a few groups or were they consistent across gender, race, age and geography. To subset/data-mine a nonsignificant result is almost guaranteed to isolate a significant subset - this is done for hypothesis generation and should be confirmed in another study with this finding as a preplanned endpoint. I would also ask if the entire dataset was used in a model with an interaction term for gender x fluoride exposure x age group is that term significant. If not there is no finding.
I am also courious as to how age was used in the model. The write up suggests that she did not have a model with indicator terms for 10 (or whatever the cutpoints were. Without including everything she cannot say that relative to other age groups and to females there is an increased risk of . . . . . which is what seemed to be implied.
I am certain that dental school dissertations and journals are not statistically reviewed for ‘peer-reviewed’ journals.”
Summary:
1. “To subset/data-mine a nonsignificant result is almost guaranteed to isolate a significant subset” - i.e., if you go in with a predetermined bias, you will be able to construct a filter that supports your bias. I.e., you could construct a filter that supports your bias that “people born on Tuesday are more likely to get cancer, ergo astrology works!”
2. “should be confirmed in another study with this finding as a preplanned endpoint.” - no work was done to support the hypothesis.
3. “I would also ask if the entire dataset was used in a model with an interaction term for gender x fluoride exposure x age group is that term significant. If not there is no finding.” - Make a model of expected behavior and then run the WHOLE dataset. If your model is not supported on this hand-picked dataset, start over.
Fundamentally, the dissertation is considered to be a non-indicator.
July 22nd, 2005 at 5:26 am
Items of Interest #49
In this issue: a girl who throws, a boy who stays out late, and a cow.
July 22nd, 2005 at 8:12 am
Check out the article on fluoridation in today’s Wall Street Journal (p. B1). See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2323.html
The article discusses the Bassin thesis. It quotes the founding editor of the journal Epidemiology, who - in contrast to Axiom’s friend - believes the study was well done and of “publishable quality.”
But, the most priceless statement in the article, is the journalist’s own observation that the promotion of fluoridation has “not been science’s finest hour.”
Ah, so true…
July 22nd, 2005 at 11:01 am
Actually, what she said was that this was a case of data-mining a nonsignificant result, looking for a significant subset. If one is found, that is the time to create a hypothesis and perform a study. Such a hypothesis should CERTAINLY contain a model explaining the expected causation for cancer in one subgroup versus another (e.g., girls vs. boys). Researching the hypothesis prior to a study is great but the actual independent study is the important part.
That was the study that was NOT performed.
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:38 am
As a person afflicted with a terrible skin allergy to fluoride and having degrees in biochemistry and forensic osteology, I can attest to the detriments of adding this junk into water. Unfortunately I live in the US and not somewhere where they are smart and/or not greedy enough to force their citizenry to poison themselves.
July 23rd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
The fact that:
1. The early researchers of the first fluoridation studies found cortical bone defects in YOUNG BOYS NOT young GIRLS
2. In 1977, the National Academy of Sciences said, “it would be important to have direct evidence that osteogenic sarcoma rates in MALES UNDER 30 have not increased with fluoridation.”
3. The National Toxicology Program conducted a study, which took more than 10 years that ruled fluoride an “equivocal carcinogen”, and further stated “The current findings are weakly supportive of an association between sodium fluoride administration and the occurrence of osteosarcomas in MALE rats, but are not conclusive… in view of the widespread exposure of the population to fluorides from a variety of sources it would appear prudent to re-examine previous animal and human epidemiologic studies, and perform further studies as needed to evaluate more fully any possible association between exposure to fluorides and the occurrence of osteosarcomas of bone.
Interestingly, in this cancer study, EVERY SINGLE tumor that was found was downgraded to a less significant tumor. This was not done by the researchers, but by someone else after the study was completed.
4. In 1990, a National Cancer Institute study concluded, “In summary, analysis of incidence data from the SEER program has revealed some age- and sex-specific increases over time for bone and joint cancers, and for osteosarcomas, which are more prominent in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.” They ruled these results inconclusive because they did not have a clear dose-dependent data set.
5. 1992: The New Jersey Department of Health conducts a study and concludes, “The study observed an association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcomas among MALES UNDER 20 years of age in seven Central New Jersey counties”
6. 1993: Dr. Yiamouyiannis finds that, “These findings indicate that fluoridation is linked to an increase in bone cancer and deaths from bone cancer in human populations among MALES UNDER age 20 and that this increase in bone cancer is probably all due to an increase in osteosarcoma caused by fluoride.”
7. 1996: Japanese researchers find, “Our data and the NTP findings provide evidence that bone can be an organ for NaF carcinogenesis”
8. 2001: Bassin’s Thesis: “Among MALES, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma…All of our models are remarkably robust in showing this effect during the mid-childhood growth spurt, which, for boys, occurs at ages seven and eight years…Our results are consistent with findings from the National Toxicology Program animal study which found ‘equivocal evidence’ for an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma for male, but not female, rats and from two ecological studies that found an association for males less than twenty years old.”
It seems that there is plenty of evidence that fluoride is capable of causing cancer, and that in young males, exposure to fluoride results in an increased risk of osteosarcoma. Anyone can draw their own conclusions, but the data speaks for itself.
July 23rd, 2005 at 4:03 pm
These claims are addressed specifically at the site that I originally recommended:
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
“Cancer Scares
In the mid-1970s, John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. and another anti began issuing a series of reports claiming that fluoridation causes cancer. Experts concluded that these reports were based on a misinterpretation of government statistics. They had compared cancer death rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities but failed to consider various factors in each city (such as industrial pollution) that are known to raise the cancer death rate. By 1977, independent investigations by eight of the leading medical and scientific organizations in the English-speaking world had refuted the claims, but they still surface today in many communities that consider fluoridation.
In 1990, the cancer charge was raised again following an unauthorized release of data from an experiment in which rats and mice were exposed to high dosages of fluoride. The experiment was conducted by the National Toxicology Program, a branch of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The agency’s final report stated that there was no evidence of cancer-causing activity in female rats or in male and female mice and only “equivocal evidence” in male rats. Subsequent review by a U.S. Public Health Service expert panel concluded that the data were insignificant and that fluoridation posed no risk of cancer or any other disease.”
They also have a page specifically directed towards Yiamouyiannis:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/yiamouyiannis.html
I didn’t realize that he was also an opponent of vaccination.
“Yiamouyiannis was also opposed to vaccination. In High Performance Health, he expressed concerns that when vaccinations are given during the first few months of life, “it is likely that at least a portion of those vaccinated suffer permanent damage to the immune system.” He also speculated that vaccinated people would have a higher incidence of AIDS. There is no scientific evidence supporting either of these views.”
July 24th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
About Europe: no, water is not usually fluoridated here, but practically *everyone* uses fluoridated toothpaste, so I find it rather ridiculous to present this as proof that fluoride is unnecessary.
In the Netherlands we had a test with fluoridated tap water in the 70’s (in Tiel, for interested Dutch readers). The results were favourable, but for political reasons it was decided that it was best to fluoridate toothpaste. Since fluoridation of toothpaste our dental health has improved dramatically. For years children were advised to eat fluoride tablets, but now they upped the amount of fluoride in toothpaste, and tablets are no longer advised. This is done because immigrant children often did not take supplements, but do brush their teeth. However: dentists raise alarm bells because they see a huge incline in cavities in children.
I do agree with the comments that probably fluoride is not necessary for most people eating a very healthy diet. However: I do not know many people that eat a truly healthy diet with lots of raw vegetables. Meat is supposedly very bad, but most vegans I know overeat on sweets (dried fruit, fruit juices, some herbal teas etc.) for example. On the other hand: I know a couple of very small children that already had lots of cavities living mostly on breastmilk. So I guess diet is not everything, and it is probably hard to compensate for the bad habits of our parents and grandparents.
I also agree with the comment about bottled water. I think it is absolutely unethical to drink bottled drinking water on a regular basis. To be truly healthy it is important to be concerned about the health of the entire planet, not just your own.
July 25th, 2005 at 3:35 am
I’m always a little grumpy when people such as this blog’s author, who has not been trained in evaluating scientific data (a skill requiring extensive scientific knowledge on the subject you are critiquing as well as knowledge of what is required to substantiate a claim and then be able to generalize that claim to a population), parrots questionable sources (http://www.fluoridealert.org) and proceeds to claim we are at risk for cancer because of fluoride.
Disgusting.
As an RN, I’ve had a few psychiatric patients come in with seizures due to overconsumption of water (as in drinking gallons per day as a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder) which caused their sodium levels to go down due to dilutional effects of gallons of water. Low sodium causes their brains to swell and thus seizures. If I wrote this up in a slanty-way, I’ll bet I could convince all of you that water has been associated with seizures and it should be banned. [Hey, maybe I’ll do that!]. I may be able to even pick out Chemical A (e.g. fluoride) in water and show that Chemical A is, in fact, the true culprit of the seizures since all of the patients-in-question probably drank fluoridated water. I am an expert in seizures, ya know. Trust me.
As a health care professional, I am keenly aware that the ability to evaluate scientific data and knowledge of medicine is a required skill before you decide to publish thoughts on whether or not a treatment is effective. This blog’s author has no such training. Once again. Disgusting.
I urge all readers to first look to respected sources such as the American Dental Association if they are questioning whether fluoride is ok or not.
(Repeat Link)
I’ve breezed through this document, and it shows consensus information due to rigorous scientific study and reveiw of multiple studies of community fluoridation. For example, in Question #28 concerning whether or not fluoride in community water is linked with cancer, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences have concluded (as well as the ADA) that there is no such link.
I highly doubt that dentists, the EPA, and the NAS are in some sort of conspiracy to (since more tooth decay=more money for dentists) increase cancer.
There are many bunk sites on the web containing medical information, and this fluoride alert site is one of them. This discussion should end. Everyone drink their milk, too, as osteoporosis and bone loss is a significant cause of hip fracture and bone deformity.
July 25th, 2005 at 6:52 am
Drinking milk to prevent osteoporosis… LOL. Well, that’s one way to maintain a thriving business, as long as people don’t ask too many questions.
Did you know that daily reading of personal development blogs greatly reduces your risk of depression?
July 25th, 2005 at 8:38 am
If you can’t tell the difference between science, pseudoscience, and anti-science, beware of people trying to sell you bridges, swampland, conspiracies, fear, etc. Just because you don’t know much about a subject doesn’t mean no one else does either…
I appreciate this article because, as Kelly points out, one must have both expertise in evaluating scientific research and in the subject matter at hand, in this case the effects of fluoride. (I have expertise in the former, but no professional expertise in fluoride).
While reading Steve’s article, I noticed him setting up some strawmen and anti-fluoride bias right away, but didn’t find anything noticeably wrong with his statements until his section “What is fluoride’s purported role in tooth decay?” As far as my knowledge goes, every statement in that section is wrong. The article goes down hill from there.
July 29th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Elahu says, “I too started off as a believer in fluoride;”
From this first sentence, I know this person is off-base in his/her argument.
Science does not require “belief.” It requires evidence. As a Professor at a major US dental school, I can tell you, I’ve read all of these studies. Axiom is about as correct as he could be, both in his/her analysis and his reference to quackwatch.
If you really were a “biochemist and molecular biologist,” you would know that a primary rule in toxicology is “the dose is the poison.” There’s no such thing as a “safe” substance. ANYTHING in large enough doses can cause physiological harm. As the RN pointed out, even water.
The benefits of fluoride are indisputable and supported by hundreds of double-blind, controlled, peer-reviewed studies. The best fluoridewatch can come up with on the risks of fluoride use is a study that someone says is “good” and “publishable.”
If it were, why hasn’t it been published?
Please learn how science works before you cherry pick unpublished studies to justify a pseudoscientific viewpoint.
August 6th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
- Actually Steve posting stuff about fluoride, microvave, etc. is good for us and himself too. Actually it is a personal blog, it is not only for all people, but also for Steve. What I mean is that for example, he begin to post about saving time with microwave; then the discussion go and light up a topic that may never was questionned from Steve: “Microwave is maybe pretty bad” — then Steve read, think, and maybe choose to stop using the microwave slowly. The reader might also see how the microwave can be a time-saver, but that it might also be a bad thing. Possibly a lot of thing in life have pro and con.
Doing something fast for example may sacrifice quality. But sometime doing something fast that cover 95% of thing is better than doing something very slowly that cover ~100%. In other case, you have no choice but reach 100% of success.
- There is a lot of wave going on and some might be also bad and some will be good! example of nice-health wave:
–> probiotics (I bet there is some formula which are more efficient than other)
–> tofu / soya (some say it is bad, search for healing crow website on the topic for example)
–> biologic food (I heard from a chemist, for example, that it was not changing much, from apparently what he studied, the main factor would be the time between when you get the food from its original location and your location. Meaning that if it is bio or not is one thing, but bio or not, vegetable will lose a lot of its property in transportation. But then there is also moral conviction about eating that way)
–> Vegetarian / Vegan (will those people change if they are proven that meat is necessary? do these people do it for health, for philosophic reason or both? etc.)
–> etc…
I think you get what I want to express there. There will be people on both side.
Steve is also saying that in case of doubt, he chose the choice that seem to not have any side effect. Of course, he may do the wrong choice.
And trying to censure someone that propagate false information is not a bad opinion, however, when that person run a blog and allow comments and respond, and threat that like a live discussion where himself and everyone can grow, you should not complaint. I am sure Steve will read all your comment, give them a second thought, and is open to be convinced. He has done errors, he will do more. He has done good shot, he will do more. I have done error, I will do more. You get it right!
So before trying to complaint and censure someone, even thought he has a great influence because he has a broad audience, you might want to wonder if what he is doing is good.
If that was coming from someone dumb who provide no value, that would be ok. However I expect personal developpement to be very broad and touch about subject like mind, training, health, food, sports, psychology, philosophy, religion, socializing, discipline, etc.
Ok now, I go back living in the world and be confused about everything. (You have to make choice… but sometime making those choice is very hard when all side are fighting with a lot of energy)
August 25th, 2005 at 10:33 am
The following EPA unions have 7,000 members out of a total of 12,000. The members of these Unions include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work they do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for managements use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. They have no vested interest.
Scientific professionals within the EPA are speaking out against the entrenched policy of public water fluoridation.
If they are deeply concerned with the safety of the practice, we should be deeply concerned with the safety of the practice.
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
BEN FRANKLIN STATION, BOX 7672, WASHINGTON D.C. 20044 - PHONE 202-566-2788
INTERNET http://www.nteu280.org E MAIL Murphy.JamesJ@epa.gov
DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
PRESS RELEASE FOR AUGUST 19, 2005
EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation,
Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up
Eleven EPA employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service have called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young boys.
The unions sent letters to key Congressional committees asking Congress to legislate a moratorium pending a review of all the science on the risks and benefits of fluoridation. The letters cited the weight of evidence supporting a classification of fluoride as a likely hu