We surely get effective doses of fluoride in toothpaste every time we brush our teeth. Doing that is considered more effective. We don't need to expose much of the rest of our bodies to fluoride when we drink it in water.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/071212fluoride

What about the people that don't brush their teeth? Surely we have to do something for them.

Them mentioning $32,000 could be redirected to medical service is a joke, that is a drop in the bucket of addressing medical costs.

I'll take the American Dental Hygienists' Association

http://www.adha.org/oralhealth/fluoride_facts.htm

The American Dental Association

http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

etc., over a bunch of astroturf websites which have questionable funding sources and rely on made up facts, questionable studies, etc.

You people are ridiculous sometimes. Maybe just really gullible?

I'll take the American Dental Hygienists' Association

http://www.adha.org/oralhealth/fluoride_facts.htm

The American Dental Association

http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

etc., over a bunch of astroturf websites which have questionable funding sources and rely on made up facts, questionable studies, etc.

You people are ridiculous sometimes. Maybe just really gullible?

Oh, really?? Fluoridation advocates, such as dentists, who use the Consumers Union 1978 pro-fluoridation article get told by Consumers Union to stop it, because it no longer backs that article: "We cannot continue to stand behind a 1978 profluoridation article given new research" Wendy Wintman, Consumers Union copyright manager (1992) More info on fluoridation by CU here: http://www.consumersunion.org/food/debate/bio1.htm

There are a number of reputable bodies, which no longer endorse, or will not endorse, the practice of fluoridation. Some are:

The National Kidney Foundation - http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=hyg&pag=dis&ItemID=300693

Also The Society of Toxicology, The American Psychiatric Association, The National Institute of Law Municipal Officers, The American Diabetes Association, The American Heart Association, The American Cancer Society, The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology.....the list goes on.

A number of employees at the Environmental Protection Agency are opposed to adding fluoride to water: http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

The very least that OKC can do about its fluoridated water is to get the level of it down to .7 ppm in accordance to recently issued guidelines by the feds.

Oh, really?? Fluoridation advocates, such as dentists, who use the Consumers Union 1978 pro-fluoridation article get told by Consumers Union to stop it, because it no longer backs that article: "We cannot continue to stand behind a 1978 profluoridation article given new research" Wendy Wintman, Consumers Union copyright manager (1992) More info on fluoridation by CU here: http://www.consumersunion.org/food/debate/bio1.htm

There are a number of reputable bodies, which no longer endorse, or will not endorse, the practice of fluoridation. Some are:

The National Kidney Foundation - http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=hyg&pag=dis&ItemID=300693

Also The Society of Toxicology, The American Psychiatric Association, The National Institute of Law Municipal Officers, The American Diabetes Association, The American Heart Association, The American Cancer Society, The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology.....the list goes on.

A number of employees at the Environmental Protection Agency are opposed to adding fluoride to water: http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

The very least that OKC can do about its fluoridated water is to get the level of it down to .7 ppm in accordance to recently issued guidelines by the feds.

Boom

Bunty drops mic, walks out

"There are a number of reputable bodies, which no longer endorse, or will not endorse, the practice of fluoridation."

I have to disagree with you in your statement that Drbicuspid.com and a "number of employees at the EPA employees" websites as "reputable bodies". If so, then theonion.com is really "America's finest news source". I am not saying that those site are entirely unreliable sites but they also should not be utilized as honest and unbiased sources of scientific evidence.

The OKC water supply is currently at .8 mg/L (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/MWF/PWSDetailV.asp?PWSID=1020902&State=OK&StartPg=1&EndPg=20&County=Oklahoma&PWSName=&Filter=0&PWS_ID=&State_ID=OK&SortBy=1&StateName=Oklahoma).

Running down quite a few of those cited papers in your main source(EPA insiders) there is a lot of information. What it says is this: There are a multitude of very slight benefits to fluoridation at the correct levels. There are also a few slight negatives to the correct levels. But the serious pathological effects were all done in LD-50 style testing. Those don't really say anything about the effect it has at lower concentrations. Many bio-reactive minerals and compounds have completely different effects depending on the dosage. Fluoride is definitely one of them. That makes blanket lists of "effects" cast some suspicion on the authors writing them.

From the few articles I just read I would bet that Bunty is correct that reducing our level to 0.7 would be a good idea. But really...it looks like we could leave it as is or end it completely and not see a visible effect within any of our lifetimes. Small beans, IMO.



A good way to get quick links on any subject that intersects science and policy is to find some scienceblogs articles on it. Those guys have links to the actual data and good analysis of it. And when they don't they get shredded by the data in the comments.

Without weighing in on the issue as I know nothing about it, I'll just say this: Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, a long list of pioneers initially considered quacks would all be accused of "pseudoscience" today. The establishment "peer reviewed" power structure would force them to have to publish at "questionable" websites to get their message out. Silenced and all in the name of "preserving science." I think we need to open minds and stop the censorship of people who dare question the hallowed halls of ivy.

"There are a number of reputable bodies, which no longer endorse, or will not endorse, the practice of fluoridation."

I have to disagree with you in your statement that Drbicuspid.com and a "number of employees at the EPA employees" websites as "reputable bodies". If so, then theonion.com is really "America's finest news source". I am not saying that those site are entirely unreliable sites but they also should not be utilized as honest and unbiased sources of scientific evidence.

The OKC water supply is currently at .8 mg/L (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/MWF/PWSDetailV.asp?PWSID=1020902&State=OK&StartPg=1&EndPg=20&County=Oklahoma&PWSName=&Filter=0&PWS_ID=&State_ID=OK&SortBy=1&StateName=Oklahoma).

Then to listen you, there are surely no reputable bodies on the Internet that endorse or do NOT endorse municipal fluoridation of drinking water, including my source from Consumers Union.

Then to listen you, there are surely no reputable bodies on the Internet that endorse or do NOT endorse municipal fluoridation of drinking water, including my source from Consumers Union.

Surely you can't be serious.

Surely you can't be serious.

Then somebody cite reputable, non biased sources on the water fluoridation issue, assuming there are any.

If I'm right, OSU did not go on to to add fluoride to its own water after getting off Stillwater's fluoridated water. So does OSU not fluoridate due to sheer ignorance from not knowing there was no longer fluoride in their changed water source, or because it was felt adding fluoride to their own water was not a good idea?

I didn't know that OKC's water is fluoridated. I always thought the benefits of fluoride came from it being applied to the teeth in toothpaste, getting in there and killing bacteria by contact, not in the digestion of it. How is that supposed to help the surface of your teeth? Although I haven't heard of any problems with our water, I have no problem with them removing or reducing it. Doesn't matter to me either way as I've apparently been living with it for decades unknowingly.

Without weighing in on the issue as I know nothing about it, I'll just say this: Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, a long list of pioneers initially considered quacks would all be accused of "pseudoscience" today. The establishment "peer reviewed" power structure would force them to have to publish at "questionable" websites to get their message out. Silenced and all in the name of "preserving science." I think we need to open minds and stop the censorship of people who dare question the hallowed halls of ivy.
No, those men documented their discoveries and provide mountains of evidence. That's why we know their names. They would thrive today.

No, those men documented their discoveries and provide mountains of evidence. That's why we know their names. They would thrive today.

I love much of what you write here concerning science, etc. but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Those three would be laughed out of the stuffy "peer reviewed" cult of academia. They never would have been able to wade through the bureaucracy that prevents honest investigation. Fear of the "pseudoscience" label keeps some of the brightest scientific minds out of the mainstream today. They're kind of like the crazy aunt in the basement. Even Einstein believed this. He agreed there were too many things that have no evidence, but he knew was true in his gut. He believed there were things simply beyond comprehension, not to mention having evidence and a paper trail. He never said what those things were except it had nothing to do with religion and that he'd already said too much. That's about as close to hints on mysticism from Einstein. But add Francis Crick and other big names who believed much the same thing and spoke on those concerns a few times. Sooo much we don't understand and the answers lie where no "serious" scientist dare tread.

This is probably a debate for philosophy; specifically those working in the Philosophy of Science and metaphysics especially. But I still find it fascinating to hear what many scientists believe, but can't begin to prove. This is a fun read. (http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818) If you don't want to buy the book, all 120 answers are on one page at edge.org here (http://www.edge.org/responses/what-do-you-believe-is-true-even-though-you-cannot-prove-it).

Yea, but those side beliefs are not why we remember those men. We remember them because they defended their actual discoveries with actual evidence. Even if they hadn't waded through pr someone would have one it with their ideas. If someone is labeled a pseudo scientist today it's probably because they're a Willner or a Wakefield.


I think the difference in that list and what I am talking about is that I view pseudo scientists as people who believe things in spite of evidence, not people who believe despite a lack of evidence.

Yea, but those side beliefs are not why we remember those men. We remember them because they defended their actual discoveries with actual evidence. Even if they hadn't waded through pr someone would have one it with their ideas.


"[S]cholars extremely dependent on criticism and conversation if they are to avoid an undue proportion of mistakes. It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone."


-John Maynard Keynes
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money


Those serious about truth acknowledge the dependency Keynes mentions. They wish to have their inevitable foolishness exposed & their wisdom rigorously criticized. They desire as much objectivity as life permits. They know every man is condemned by the structure of life to a very limited experience, so they seek help in their pursuit of truth from the experience of others.

It should be easy to settle the fluoridation issue. Before a city shuts off fluoridation, it should determine what its dental cavity rate is. Then several years later, see if the cavity rate is rising. If not, stopping fluoridation can be regarded as a good decision.

I think the difference in that list and what I am talking about is that I view pseudo scientists as people who believe things in spite of evidence, not people who believe despite a lack of evidence.

I like that.

I'll take the American Dental Hygienists' Association

http://www.adha.org/oralhealth/fluoride_facts.htm

The American Dental Association

http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

etc., over a bunch of astroturf websites which have questionable funding sources and rely on made up facts, questionable studies, etc.

You people are ridiculous sometimes. Maybe just really gullible?

It might as will be pointed out that the American Dental Association is a trade organization and does no research of its own and has successfully argued in court that they assume no legal liability for any harm that may result from their recommendations. So are there any organizations out there endorsing water fluoridation willing to really stand up for it in court, rather than try to legally get out of doing so?

:wink: All I know, without researching the Internet (& deciding which articles to believe), is that my birth city, Oklahoma City, has been fluoridating its water since before I was born (63 years ago) and I've been fortunate to never have a cavity nor gum disease. I am lucky if I brush my teeth 5 times a week - and I know there are many others who neglect their toothbrushes. I am sure fluoridation contributed to my good luck in never having a cavity. :wink:

After I wrote the above response, I felt the need to brush & floss my teeth & drink a glass of fluoridated OKC water. It is bedtime for me and my pearly whites. ;)

:wink: All I know, without researching the Internet (& deciding which articles to believe), is that my birth city, Oklahoma City, has been fluoridating its water since before I was born (63 years ago) and I've been fortunate to never have a cavity nor gum disease. I am lucky if I brush my teeth 5 times a week - and I know there are many others who neglect their toothbrushes. I am sure fluoridation contributed to my good luck in never having a cavity. :wink:

After I wrote the above response, I felt the need to brush & floss my teeth & drink a glass of fluoridated OKC water. It is bedtime for me and my pearly whites. ;)

Agree with John. I was told when I entered the service at the dental inspection "your teeth are in great condition. You must come from Oklahoma or Kansas." An older brother was born elsewhere and he's had dentures since mid age.

It should be easy to settle the fluoridation issue. Before a city shuts off fluoridation, it should determine what its dental cavity rate is. Then several years later, see if the cavity rate is rising. If not, stopping fluoridation can be regarded as a good decision.

It would take decades, and every citizen would ave to have full medical work-ups done before and after. We already have pretty good data for this using demographically-similar sister cities with and without fluoridation. What they show is that the dental positives of fluoridation lessen as income rises, but the other positives and negatives stay about the same.

The two posts above are anecdotal.

Speaking of anecdotal . . .
Remember that scene in Dr. Strangelove with Sterling Hayden as Gen. Ripper and Peter Sellers as Col. Mandrake (or whomever) in which Gen. Ripper makes it known that the reason he orchestrated the conditions leading to war with The Soviet Union had something to do with Communists polluting our precious bodily fluids?

I do. Total Recall, like that, is an unanticipated consequence of growing up in the 50's in a town that flouridated its water. We have been warned.

Speaking of anecdotal . . .
Remember that scene in Dr. Strangelove with Sterling Hayden as Gen. Ripper and Peter Sellers as Col. Mandrake (or whomever) in which Gen. Ripper makes it known that the reason he orchestrated the conditions leading to war with The Soviet Union had something to do with Communists polluting our precious bodily fluids?

I do. Total Recall, like that, is an unanticipated consequence of growing up in the 50's in a town that flouridated its water. We have been warned.

that was the first thing i thought of when bunty went on this fluoride kick...
(http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29764#post534262)

Dang. And here I thought I was going to get a "warning" about trolling/going off topic. =)
P.S.: I refrained from posting a YouTube Link. Thanks for picking up the slack. =)

Edited to Add: Okay . . . It's NOT a YouTube Link. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand videos.
If you have Fluoride Induced Total Recall, that is. =)

BTW: Scientific Studies have yet to make the connection between adding Fluoride to the drinking water and global warming/nuclear war, but there is anecdotal evidence that it increases one's sensitivity to train horns and cheating "Indian" casinos. =)

So are there any organizations out there endorsing water fluoridation willing to really stand up for it in court, rather than try to legally get out of doing so?

from what i can tell, the cdc (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/) endorses an optimum level of .7 mg/l. previously, a range of .7 - 1.2 mg/l was supported. -M

1.3 mg/l was ruled inadmissable.
(However, it should be noted, in all fairness, for the record, that the attorney who attempted to introduce that standard adjustment of the parameters, on behalf of his client, was unable to "stand up in court" on account of he was suffering from Dr. Strangelove/Lebowski Syndrome. So he simply emailed a hologram to the court and the bailiff couldn't figure out how to present it as evidence.)

(Sorry . . . I watched the season premier of "Breaking Bad" last night and the lawyer character put in an appearance) . . .

Below are some key points that show the benefits of fluoridating water.

This was the first study conducted on the benefit of treating water with Fl

• Children surveyed in 26 states with DMFT (decayed missing fill teeth) index.
• Caries in children was lower in community water supply with Flˉ concentrations more than 1.0 ppm. Prevalence of dental fluorosis was was low and very mild.
• Tested hypothesis that dental caries could be prevented by adjusting the Flˉ concentration of community water supplies from negligible levels to 1.0 -1.2 ppm.
• 1945 – field study in 4 pairs of cities: Grand Rapids and Muskegon, MI; Newburgh & Kingston, NY; Evanston & Oak Park, IL; Brantford & Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.
• Cross-sectional surveys conducted in these cities over 13-15 year period. Caries reduction by 50-70% among children in fluoridated communities.


Different communities need varying amounts of Fl in the water due to average consumption. Warmer climates have lower concentrations of Fl added (they tend to drink more water b/c it is hot) - colder climates have higher concentrations of Fl added to the water (they drink less water).

For those of you that wonder why Fl is added to water and how it protects teeth -
- it inhibits demineralization of the teeth. It also enhances remineralization by absorbing to the tooth surface. This attracts calcium ions present in saliva. After which, the fluoride bonds with calcium and phosphate ions creating a fluorapatite. This essentially makes the tooth less soluble to bacterial acids.
- Fluoride also enters bacterial cells interfering with enzyme activity and changes the intracellular pH. This results in reduced acid production of the bacteria which prevents dissolution of the tooth minerals.

Lastly, here are some stats that compare the cost effectiveness of adding Fl to public drinking systems.

• Water fluoridation costs range from approximately 50 cents in communities with more than 50,000 persons to $3.00 per person in communities of less than 10,000.
• Reduced direct health care expenditures through prevention of caries and avoidance of restorative care. Every $1 invested in fluoridation saves $38 in dental tx.
• Water fluoridation is the most cost effective method in the U.S. per saved tooth surface.

Please visit the CDC website concerning water fluoridation. http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

But I doubt the studies showing benefits of fluoride take into account how the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste would impact the results.

But I doubt the studies showing benefits of fluoride take into account how the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste would impact the results.

actually, they have taken that into account... (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html) -M

But I doubt the studies showing benefits of fluoride take into account how the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste would impact the results.

Real work at that scale is usually very thorough. Anything you or I think of that might compromise the data...they've already quantified it and made adjustments if necessary.

Real work at that scale is usually very thorough. Anything you or I think of that might compromise the data...they've already quantified it and made adjustments if necessary.

But in the real world the benefits of fluoridated water don't add up:

FROM: http://www.orgsites.com/ny/newyorkstatecoalitionopposedtofluoridation/_pgg1.php3

- Tulsa, Oklahoma, water department, where 19% of residents lost six or more teeth.(5) Compare that to New York State's two largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau, where only 16% lost six or more teeth. Nassau and Suffolk received no kudos for retaining their natural choppers.

Further, an Oklahoma Department of Health Report reveals an "Alarming Prevalence of Tooth Decay Among Oklahoma's Children," where nearly 70 percent of third graders have cavities(6) although 75% drink fluoride-laced water.

Right, cavity rates are more dependent on income than on fluoridation. That doesn't mean that fluoridation doesn't work.

Then here is a good recently made video against fluoridation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmLQQmf4xk&feature=relmfu

The organization responsible for that video claims that vitamin D works better than vaccines. I haven't eaten beef or chicken in years. I buy organic more often than not and I am very conscious of food and waterborne contaminants. That video is not something that I would ever get too worked up about. I can appreciate why it seems convincing, but it ignores the QC that all of our food and water additives go through.

Rather than fight city hall and try to counter pro fluoridation propaganda from the government and other sources, I'll simply reduce my exposure to fluoride by using a water filter at the kitchen sink that is able to get rid of fluoride. As a added bonus it will filter out chlorine, which is also a poison. At the same time the filtered water should make my coffee taste better.

What the CDC doesn't mention is that tooth decay rates have also dropped in countries that do NOT fluoridate:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/who_data01.jpg

So since the correlation is not valid, and fluoride has known health risks due to its toxicity, why not stop fluoridation?

Wichita voted by a large margin not to start fluoridating its water.

Day after victory, Wichita fluoridation opponents vow to work against fluoridation nationally - KansasCity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/07/3905735/day-after-victory-wichita-fluoridation.html)

What the CDC doesn't mention is that tooth decay rates have also dropped in countries that do NOT fluoridate:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/who_data01.jpg

So since the correlation is not valid, and fluoride has known health risks due to its toxicity, why not stop fluoridation?

NIH and WHO track those rates and they are very open With the information that shows that they correlate strongly with more than just fluoridation. There's no conspiracy to hide that info.

If we stop fluoridating our water, everyone who doesn't brush their teeth regularly will start looking British -- at least their teeth will!