An answer to the anti-fluoride critics – in one image

By Ken Perrott 24/07/2014 80


Undeserved-Reputations-Fluoride-724x1024

Click image to enlarge. 

The chemical website Compound Interest, is producing a series of infograms to communicate some chemistry.  Here is an excellent one they produced on fluoride. I think it would make a great poster.

It is accompanied by some straightforward text describing the science behind fluoridation and countering a lot of the misinformation anti-fluoride propagandists promote.

Worth reading. See Fluoride & Water Fluoridation – An Undeserved Reputation?

The chemically minded may also be interested is some of their other infograms –  here are just a few examples:

Similar articles


80 Responses to “An answer to the anti-fluoride critics – in one image”

  • There is some evidence that excessive flouride can weaken bones, so not all the science is on the side of the pro-flouride lobby. The main argument against flouridisation of water is around forcibly being made to do what is good for us (even if it is actually good for us), since we effectively have little choice but to use mains water. This is an ethical issue, not a scientific one.

    • I agree, Michael, there is evidence for negative effects at excessive concentrations. That is why there are recommended maxima for drinking water. the target optimum concentration here is 0.7 ppm where no negative effects are reported except mild or very mild dental fluorosis. (By the way, there is also evidence that fluoride concentrations below the optimum level weakens bones).

      I also agree this is an ethical question – and I wish opponents would discuss the ethics instead of misrepresenting the science. I often compare the social health policy of fluoridation to the social good policies of free education and free hospitals. They are there but no-one is forced to use them. We all have individual choice – however that may involve expensive private school fees or medical insurance.

      The costs of exercising choice in the case of fluoridated water are far less – using alternative sources or a cheap water filter (many people – pro and anti-fluoride – already use filter systems). It seems to me that this is the responsible action for someone who objects to the water straight out of the tap. The moaning and complaining we hear from the anti-fluoridation people seems petty and childish. Why should that small minority deny the choice to the vast majority to access a social health policy which is safe and effective?

      Jutice Hansen also made a very valid comment in his recent High Court judgement on the South Taranaki case (see Hansen, L. M. (2014) High Court Judgement – New Health NZ vs South Taranaki District Council. 43 pp.):

      “Provided it does not have consequences for public health a person has the right to make even the poorest decisions in respect of their own health. But where the state, either directly or through local government, employs public health interventions, the right is not engaged. Were it otherwise, the individual’s right to refuse would become the individual’s right to decide outcomes for others. It would give any person a right of veto over public health measures which it is not only the right but often the responsibility of local authorities to deliver.”

      Dr. John Harris of the Department of Ethics and Social Policy at the University of Manchester, UK, made the same point in his article The Ethics of fluoridation:

      “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.”

  • So fluoride only bio accumulates in the body from water and no other sources? Just from your water? What about the sublingual administration of fluoride every time you brush your teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste, or use a fluoridated mouthwash? Why don’t you count that as part of your daily dose? Sodium fluoride dissolves easily in both water and saliva. Almost any form of substance may be amenable to sublingual administration if it dissolves easily in saliva.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublingual

    • Ima, where on earth did you get the idea the only source of dietary F is from water? not here for sure. It is usually by far the major source but intake from other foods, and from toothpaste is well known and taken into account when tables of dietary intakes are produced. These tables are of course updated regularly and provide a basis for health and scientific experts and their recommendations.

      I think you have seen the word “fluoride” and it made you froth at the mouth – you have read things into my article that weren’t there.

  • Prescription strength or high fluoride toothpaste has a high concentration of sodium fluoride (NaF) and ranges from above 1,500 parts per million (ppm) to 5,000 ppm which is the maximum concentration available. A dentist wouldn’t think twice about prescribing it to use every day, if not multiple times a day. So if you brushed your teeth with this for 3 minutes, how much fluoride would be ingested sublingually?

    We’re just trying to determine how much fluoride we are already getting from toothpaste alone. And given it is absorbed sublingually which will give you the “systemic effects” you deem so necessary, why would you want it in the tap water as well? Are you peddling fluoridated water?

    • Ima, you should be aware that you haven’t made a great discovery which everyone else has ignored. Far from it. The intake of fluoride from use of toothpaste is well known and accounted for in dietary intake tables. The excessive intake by individuals who compulsively consume toothpaste is also known – that is the main danger, not its day to day use.

      While ingestion of some fluoride is beneficial during tooth development in the first 4 years of life the day to day benefit for existing teeth comes from the remineralisation reaction at the tooth surface with existing teeth. Because of the infrequent use of toothpaste (usually no more than twice a day) and the relatively rapid drop of F concentration is saliva (over about 45 min) the consumption of fluoride in food and water during the day helps maintain F concentrations in saliva.

      Therefore, use of fluoridated toothpaste and consumption of fluoridated water supplement each other. One does not substitute for the other.

  • What about the fact that fluoride bio accumulates in the body? No deficiency of fluoride has been found with lab work (i.e. urine, blood, or hair analysis). Regardless of the amount of fluoride maintained in either toothpaste or tap water, it will steadily increase in the body. In fact, fluoride is NOT necessary for healthy teeth. Baking soda and water work just fine for brushing teeth. It neutralizes acids from foods and beverages. But fluoride’s effects depend on the TOTAL daily intake of fluoride from ALL sources. About 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body. In infants 80–90% of absorbed fluoride is RETAINED, with the rest excreted, mostly via urine; in adults about 60% is RETAINED. About 99% of retained fluoride is stored in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich areas, where excess quantities can cause fluorosis.

    **Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. Fluoride in Drinking-water [PDF]. World Health Organization; 2006. ISBN 92-4-156319-2. Human health effects. p. 29–36.

    Dr. P.H. Phillips, biochemist, University of Wisconsin stated,
    “Fluoride is an accumulative poison which accumulates in the skeletal structures, including the teeth, when the body is exposed to small daily intakes of this element. …it is like lead accumulation in the bone until saturation occurs and then lead poisoning sets in.”

    Sounds pretty good if you’re trying to eliminate the elderly population.

  • and yet the current elderly in NZ, recipients of fluoridation the majority of their life, continue to outlive their predecessors by a substantial margin.

    Darn it, another conspiracy theory bites the dust…

  • Fluoridated water just doesn’t seem to be required to have healthy teeth.

    On PubMed.gov
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18756850
    “The fluoride content of drinking water and caries experience in 15-19 year old school children in Ibadan, Nigeria”

    “Nine hundred fifty-five students aged 15-19 years randomly selected from eleven secondary schools in Ibadan metropolis were examined for dental caries. The fluoride level of the different water sources was between 0.02 and 0.03 ppm. [only] Forty-four (4.6%) of the children had dental caries. In conclusion, both the fluoride level and caries prevalence were low.”

    Singapore however has been 100% fluoridated since 1958 and currently 40% of their preschoolers are suffering with SEVERE dental caries. See online article “40% of S’pore preschoolers suffer from severe tooth decay”.
    http://yourhealth.asiaone.com/content/40-spore-preschoolers-suffer-severe-tooth-decay

    • Ima,
      Neither of the materials you presented are relevant as they do no compare populations consuming fluoridated water with populations who don’t. There are plenty of studies world wide and in NZ showing a beneficial effect of fluoride when such populations are compared.

      I am afraid you are just demonstrating your confirmation bias and cherry picking skills (or ability to copy and paste from Paul Connett’s misinformation stack.

  • I’m not getting anything from Paul Connett. I’m just reading from the U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health website. PubMed. And Wikipedia for “sublingual administration”. Have you heard of either?

  • On PubMed.gov
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255877

    “Effects of the fluoride on the central nervous system”

    “INTRODUCTION: Fluoride (F) is a toxic and reactive element, and exposure to it passes almost unnoticed, with the consumption of tea, fish, meat, fruits, etcetera and articles of common use such as: toothpaste additives; dental gels, non-stick pans and razor blades as Teflon. It has also been used with the intention of reducing the dental cares.

    DEVELOPMENT: Fluoride can accumulate in the body, and it has been shown that continuous exposure to it causes damaging effects on body tissues, particularly the nervous system directly without any previous physical malformations.

    BACKGROUND: Several clinical and experimental studies have reported that the F induces changes in cerebral morphology and biochemistry that affect the neurological development of individuals as well as cognitive processes, such as learning and memory. F can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects they are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident.

    CONCLUSION: The prolonged ingestion of F may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system. Therefore, it is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain F, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of F.”

  • On PubMed.gov
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812419
    “Is there a need of extra fluoride in children?”

    “Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate, disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, causing disruptive effect on tissues in the body. It inhibits antibody formation, disturbs immune system and makes the child prone to malignancy. Fluoride has been categorized as a protoplasmic poison…”

  • Chronic exposure to fluoride can also cause a loss of adult teeth and premature aging. Good stuff.

    See PubMed:
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    “[Fluorine as a factor in premature aging].”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16892576

    “Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition (TOOTH LOSS) in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds.”

    So why do dentists recommend a substance that has the potential to destroy teeth to protect teeth? Seems a little irrational to me.

    • Yes, Ima, I am familiar with the papers you cite and quote – after all they are frequently used by anti-fluoride propagandists. So you have allowed these people to do your cherry picking for you – the fact is an honest search of the literature produces far more papers than the few you have located from your favourite propagandist.

      Scientific literature should be approached critically and intelligently. Connett and his mates don’t know the meaning of those words. One must be aware of things like the level of intake, concentration in drinking water, confounding factors etc.

      I notice that you are taking a typical troll approach – Gish galloping and moving from one thing to another. You also hide behind a false name – another typical characteristic of anti-fluoride trolls and their commenting and letters to the editor network.

  • Dental fluorosis due to chronic fluoride exposure seems to be a little more than just cosmetic. See “Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds”.
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026

    “Mottled teeth are not only disfiguring in appearance but are so defective in structure and strength that they often have to be replaced by false teeth at an early age.”

    When did this FACT change? This was known as far back as the 1930’s. Why would a dentist recommend a substance KNOWN to damage teeth to protect teeth? Sound logical? Why isn’t anyone using using lab work (i.e. urine, blood, or hair analysis) on the population to determine the fluoride levels in their body? Using the scientific method? Lab work has been available for decades. Counting cavities is little more than pseudoscience subject to bias and wishful thinking.

    • Again, stop your trolling. You are desperately using a paper from 1934 to misrepresent the situation – very dishonest.

      Water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis. Christ, get some idea of balance and magnitude. You are using reference to over-exposure which can cause severe dental fluorosis to claim the same thing happens with water fluoridation. It doesn’t. Stop your cherry picking and reliance of a anti-fluoride propagandist sources and then you. It be able to learn something.

      Stop your trolling and hiding behind false names.

  • You already know fluoride is a bio accumulative rat poison, right? Even Harold Hodge knew they were using a rat poison.

    “Appointed initially in biochemistry, Hodge pursued dental research including the toxicity of fluoride, as there was a huge stigma against using fluoride for the public health. (It was, after all, a RAT POISON.)”
    http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full

    Do you know the other side of Harold Hodge’s history? His secret experiments on people using uranium and plutonium? Secretly injecting people with the stuff? You can read about it on Wikipedia.

  • On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    PubMed/9161076
    “New evidence on fluoridation”

    “A review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistent pattern of evidence– hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas– pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones. In addition, there is evidence, accepted by some eminent dental researchers… that there is negligible benefit from ingesting fluoride…”

  • Fluoride can even make your future grandchildren stupid. Good stuff!!

    On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health
    PubMed/21755305
    “Fluoride toxicity and status of serum thyroid hormones, brain histopathology, and learning memory in rats: a multigenerational assessment”

    “In the T-maze experiments, the fluoride-treated group showed poor acquisition and retention and higher latency when compared with the control. The alterations were more profound in the third generation when compared with the first- and second-generation fluoride-treated group. Changes in the thyroid hormone levels in the present study might have imbalanced the oxidant/antioxidant system, which further led to a reduction in learning memory ability. Hence, presence of generational or cumulative effects of fluoride on the development of the offspring when it is ingested continuously through multiple generations is evident from the present study.”

  • See PubMed.
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    PubMed/11512573
    “Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on WHO data…”

    “…cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with Fluoridated Drinking water (FD). This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin’s disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with Fluoridated Drinking water.”

  • Well this is good to know.

    On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    PubMed/9002384
    “Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan”

    “The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities.”

  • Pineal gland? In the brain?
    On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health
    PubMed/11275672

    “Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland” [in the brain].- Luke, J.

    “The purpose was to discover whether fluoride (F) accumulates in the aged human pineal gland. By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone.”

  • Better come down off that fluoride gradually. Wow.
    On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health
    PubMed/19201548

    “Is fluoride-induced hyperthyroidism a cause of psychosis among East African immigrants to Scandinavia?”

    “East African immigrants to Scandinavia are admitted to mental hospitals far more frequently than native Scandinavians. Most of these patients are admitted for psychosis, commonly ascribed to problems adapting to the new culture. However, psychosis is also known to be associated with hyperthyroidism, and the high frequency of psychosis among East Africans in Scandinavia may at least in part be due to hyperthyroidism rather than cultural problems. Large areas in East Africa are notorious for high natural concentrations of fluoride in water and plants. Fluoride inhibits the production of thyroid hormones. To maintain normal thyroxin levels the body increases the capacity for thyroxin production. Goitre is caused by such a compensatory mechanism, and endemic goitre is widespread in many high-fluoride areas, even where dietary access to iodine is adequate. When people from such areas arrive in a low-fluoride area, their elevated capacity to produce thyroid hormones may lead to hyperthyroidism and subsequently to psychosis.”

    Fluoride inhibits the production of thyroid hormones. Nice.

  • It is encouraging to know at least some countries are researching the link between Alzheimer’s and fluoride-aluminum complexes.

    On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    “Current trends in fluorine research”

    “…topics in fluorine research are presented on findings by researchers in Szczecin and Poland, as well as in the world. Reports are cited on the distribution of fluorine compounds in the environment, penetration into living organisms, and methods for the determinations of fluorine content in air, water, soil, and foods. …aluminofluoride complexes (AlFx) as a messenger of false information during protein biosynthesis and their apparent role of Alzheimer’s disease.”

  • Maybe we should just ignore the link between fluoride and autism? Autism which is now an epidemic in America that everyone chooses to ignore? How are these children going to support themselves as adults?

    From the Lancet Medical journal, March 2014.
    “Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity”

    “Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including AUTISM, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, FLUORIDE, chlorpyrifos…

    To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy.”

  • Autism. Again. On PubMed.
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    PubMed/19284184

    “A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders …and the synergistic effects of other environmental toxins”

    “In addition, a number of environmental neurotoxins, such as FLUORIDE, lead, cadmium, and aluminum, can result in these pathological and biochemical changes.”

    Aren’t we adding “fluoride” (hexafluorosilicic acid) with the above co-contaminates into the population’s water supply? Sound smart?

  • I don’t know what you know, or don’t know. But whenever there is a volcanic eruption, you will find that it is always the fluoride in the ash that causes the teeth of wildlife and farm animals to CRUMBLE and FALL OUT. It is only the fluoride that is to blame for this damage. It causes bones to break. But somehow dentists believe if you put this bio accumulative poison in a toothpaste tube or in tap water it becomes a miraculous substance that benefits everyone’s teeth. How STUPID do they expect everyone to be?

    See online article, “Toxic Ash Threatens Iceland Animals ”.
    “It [fluoride] also binds with calcium in the blood stream and after heavy exposure over a period of days makes bones frail, even causing teeth to CRUMBLE.”

    See online article, “Volcanic Ash Could Hover For Days Over Europe”.
    “The ash is toxic – the FLUORIDE causes long-term bone damage that makes TEETH FALL OUT and bones break.”

    H. Trendley Dean was the father of fluoridation. To paraphrase Dean’s findings, “As children’s teeth disintegrate, they may have fewer cavities”. Trendley Dean admitted under oath on a witness stand that his early data gave ZERO evidence that increasing fluoride concentration in the water supply reduced tooth decay.

    (H. Trendley Dean: Proceedings, City of Oroville vs. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Oroville, California, Oroville, California, October 20-21, 1955.)… also… (See 4-1: “Fluoridation Benefits – Statistical Illusion.” Testimony of Konstantin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, Mar. 6, 1957).

    Any potential “benefit” seen with fluoridated water was a statistical illusion. Fluoride just delays the eruption of children’s teeth giving the illusion it prevents tooth decay. In reality, it only delays them.

    And I don’t know about anyone else but I can believe what happens in nature. So why are dentists recommending a substance that can destroy teeth to protect teeth?

    • Ima Skeptic, I have noticed that you are like almost all other trouble makers who comment here employing gish galloping, refusing to participate in discussion and then taking off in that you hide behind a nom de plume.

      This sort of thing is tedious, does nothing for the reputation of the troll or their arguments.

      I am thinking of ways to encourage more resposbibility fropm commenters. Because almost inevitably trolls here hide behin a false name, nom de plume or some sort of pseudonym I am considering banning these except in cases where there is an obvious need to protect identities. My feeling is that people who hide in this way realy are not worth entering intodiuscussion with.

      Now, if I introduce such rules for commenting here will you consider using a real name so that you can continue commenting? Or will it mean that you will not continue commenting?

  • It’s not “gish gallop”. You don’t have a time frame in which to respond. You can take months. Be my guest. None of my information came from any anti-fluoridationist website so you can’t hide behind that scenario. If Paul Connett ever used any of this information, I have no control over him. Besides, demonizing someone just because they say something negative about water fluoridation is ludicrous. Childish. Fluoride isn’t just in tap water anyway. It’s coming from every direction. Just try to avoid it for once.

    • Ima, you did not respond to my question about hiding behind a nom de plume.

      Would you continue commenting here is this was not allowed?

      It’s a genuine inquiry on my part.

  • You need my full name and address in order to address my comments? For what? Now you are being silly. Playing games. I really don’t have time for games.

    • That’s not what I said, Ima. Just that you would not be permitted to use a non de plume without a good reason.

      Anyway, I will take that as a no – which has certain attractions.

  • Ima. It is not a game. Children wtih rotton teeth and all the problems that go with that… Irresponsible to not add fluoride to drinking water. I agree; not a game.

    That is why Ken is well within this rights to insist on names. Trolls, cherry picking and gish galloping are not helpful.

    Ken, If you haven’t already “Ira Skeptic” googles up in other discussions. The same material is presented. He/she is rarely challenged. Sad really.

    • Yes, Maurice, I am not surprised. My concern is partly because the Fluoride Alert network has an automatic letters to the editor system. If editors were aware of this they might be more proactive in filtering their letters. I am aware it is impossible to stop every troll but at least of nom de plumes were restrict to genuine cases and even when false names are used it would make the job a little bit easier.

  • Why must the fluoride be in tap water instead of people using supplemental fluoridated salt? If it was in fluoridated salt, people wouldn’t be forced to bathe and shower in it. They would actually have a choice as to whether they used it, or not. Are you afraid people would avoid fluoridated salt? It seems all the discord could be resolved just by putting it in salt instead of tap water. But no one wants to do that. Why?

  • I wouldn’t campaign for fluoridated salt. I use baking soda and water to brush my teeth with. It’s great at neutralizing acidic foods and beverages and does a great job at cleaning the teeth. But fluoridated salt would actually give people a choice if they didn’t feel comfortable bathing and showing in fluoridated tap water. I just don’t understand why some dentists refuse to even consider fluoridated salt over fluoridated tap water. It’s like it must be their way, or no way. They seem to like to argue more than wanting to resolve the discord. It just doesn’t come off as very professional on their part and it has ruined my impression of the dental industry in general. I’ve become turned off by the “oppressive control freak” types.

    • OK, you are not prepared to campaign for fluoridated salt, I aren’t interested in doing so. My city has finally defeated the extremist group which attempted to deny us the benefits of water fluoridation. I am happy for that as are most of my fellow citizens and I don’t see anyone currently interested in advocating an alternative – probably because water fluoridation has some significant advantages as a social health policy.

      If some dentist upset you why not chat to them – I am not a dentist. My background is that of a research chemist so your bitch about chemists is irrelevant to me. I cannot take the silly foibles other people have on to my own shoulders.

  • Extremist group? Just sounds like some people just wanted a choice. But you choose to label them as an “extremist group”? That is telling… Oppression, here we come whether you like it, or not.

    • The extremists were denying the democratically selected and expressed choice of citizens – behind their backs. No one has lost their choice – except those whose choice was to undemocratically impose their foibles on others rather than take responsibility for themselves.

  • Ima Skeptic,
    What harm do you think there could be in bathing or showering in water with traces of fluoride in it? it isn’t absorbed through the skin.
    Ken is right about your Gish Gallop, you have just bombarded this blog with a range of suggestions just because they contain fluoride. For example you talk about examples with high doses of fluoride, e.g. Volcanic ash – what this has to do with fluoridated water I have no idea.
    As has been previously stated the dose of fluoride in water is so low there is little chance of harm to humans.

  • Michael Edmonds,
    Calcium fluoride probably wouldn’t be as easily absorbed through the skin. But hexafluorosilicic acid can easily penetrate the skin. People take Epsom salt bathes to absorb magnesium through the skin. It’s not uncommon at all. What makes you think hexafluorosilicic acid (or the fluoride ion) in tap water can’t ever penetrate the skin? The skin is the largest organ of the body. Nicotine patches are used because the nicotine can be absorbed through the skin. What are you basing your opinion on?

    The most significant flaw in fluoride research is the failure to account for the inhalation, mucosal, and dermal exposure to fluoride compounds. It invalidates all dosage conclusions based solely on ingestion.

  • Michael Edmonds,
    It is the FLUORIDE in volcanic ash that destroys bone and teeth. It is ONLY the FLUORIDE that is blamed for this damage. Fluoride bio accumulates in bone and teeth forever. Over the years, it can destroy teeth and bone. But dentists promote it as a miraculous substance to maintain healthy teeth. Does this sound logical? Especially when no lab work (i.e. urine, blood, or hair analysis) is ever done to determine the levels of fluoride in anyone’s body? Neither before, or after, the implementation of water fluoridation? Does it sound scientific to you? Why isn’t anyone using lab work on the population that are being dosed with this chemical? Does counting cavities sound like sound science to you? It is subject to bias and wishful thinking. Where’s the lab work proving anyone needs another fluoride ion? Who is monitoring all these people with lab work? It’s rat poison. And it is cumulative.

  • Here is the “York Report”-the largest systematic, quantitative meta-analysis of water fluoridation ever conducted. Their conclusion? That water fluoridation is not proven effective by the standards of evidence-based medicine (i.e. the effect is not statistically significant).

    http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/
    Water fluoridation has never been tested in a randomized controlled trial. All water fluoridation trials have been NON-blinded. This is enormously problematic because cavity identification is highly subjective. Every single water fluoridation trial therefore has big problems with observation bias.

    The science of water fluoridation efficacy SUCKS. It is not even close to being proven effective by the standards of evidence-based medicine.

  • It doesn’t matter that the scientific basis of fluoridation is very unsatisfactory?

    On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    PubMed/3059145

    “Fluoridation: a fifty-year-old accepted but unconfirmed hypothesis”

    “The fifty-year-old fluoridation hypothesis has not been confirmed. Despite this, millions of people are still medicated with fluoride by government decree, on the assumption that this process has been proved to be entirely safe, and very efficacious in reducing dental caries. In fact, the scientific basis of fluoridation is very unsatisfactory. It is promoted, in the main, by emotion-based ‘endorsements’ rather than by scientifically-acceptable evidence.”

    Just force everyone to bathe and shower in it anyway despite the fact that fluoridated toothpaste and fluoridated mouthwash is available to anyone who wants and it’s ingested sublingually when used, giving you all the “systemic effects” anyone might desire? It’s not like anyone eats and drinks something every 45 minutes to keep the fluoride in their saliva anyway. People just aren’t that obsessed over fluoride. And Fluoride-based pesticides are used on/in the foods you eat, containing much higher concentrations of fluoride than is allowed in tap water.

    Fluoride-based pesticides used on foods include:
    Cryolite
    Sodium Fluoride
    Sulfuryl Fluoride

    Have you bothered to research that? It’s all accumulating in your bones and teeth… and your pineal gland.

  • Ima,

    The words “may” and “can” in the papers you have cherry picked do not mean “will”.

    I find it useful to mentally substitute the words “may not” for “may” and “can” when I read scientific papers. The data in the papers equally supports the use of “may not”, and it gives a useful perspective on the data. But you, as a ” Skeptic”, would already know that…?

    I note your view on volcanic ash. In comments to a previous blog by Ken, one anti-fluoride commentor sourced their own bottled water from the slopes of an active volcano in order to avoid fluoridated tap water. By cherry picking, the two of you reached diametrically opposite viewpoints, even though you are both determinedly anti-fluoride.

    It just goes to show that you need to read ALL of the literature in order to gain an accurate perspective on any subject.

  • Ima, you are returning to your irrelevant copypasta while cowardly hiding behind a nom de plume. I warn you that while I want to get some sensible feedback before instituting a rule to ban nom de plumes and can still ban individuals who behave the way you are.

    Now, why don’t you try sticking to a point, give people a chance to respond, stop your cowardly Gish galloping and participate in rational discussion.

    If I have to ban you then be aware this may affect your rating in spam filters.

  • Ima, fluorosilic acid does not have a problem penetrating the skin – it burns it off. It is a concentrated corrosive acid. But it does not exist in fluoridated water. You have obviously been badly informed to make that extremely silly claim.

    You are showing your blatant ignorance and arrogance regarding the chemistry – what do you think gives you the credibility to pass judgement on what has or hasn’t been researched?

  • No one eats foods or drinks beverages every 45 minutes. Suggesting this is the case is ludicrous. You’ve not adequately addressed any of my questions in any of my comments. This leads me to believe you’ve done very little research on fluorides in our foods, beverages, pesticides used on foods, fluoride in toothpaste, in mouthwash, in dental floss, in prescriptions, in air pollution, in tea, in tobacco, etc. It’s all cumulative. You just don’t come off as credible. All you’re focused on is my identity and “gish gallop”. It’s clearly nothing more than an evasion of the topic. Just side-stepping.

    • No one says we eat food and drink water every 45 minutes. That was simply the approximate time research has shown for the F concentration in saliva to decline to levels where it may not be so protective. (This time is lengthened because some of the fluoride is stored in biofilms or plaque on the tooth surface and the decline is slower there.) Hence fluoridated water can play a beneficial role supplementing fluoride contributed from twice daily tooth brushing.

      My articles on fluoride and fluoridation have mainly been aimed at countering the misinformation and distortions from anti-fluoride propagandists. You can find them at Fluoridation and Fluoride debate.

  • So the fluoride found in tea and tobacco don’t benefit the teeth but the fluoride in water does?

    • No, you are wrong Ima. The hydrated F anion is the same whatever it’s origin. It is beneficial to oral health at optimum concentrations and intake whatever food or beverage it is in.

  • What is the “recommended daily allowance” for fluoride? Furthermore I just gave you a study that showed the fluoride in tea DID NOT prevent dental caries which you have censored.

    I can also give you one regarding tobacco and dental caries. The fluoride in tobacco does NOT prevent dental caries.

    It seems we have a problem.

    • Ima, I am moderating you so that simply copypasta does not get through. If you want me to look at a paper provide a link or citation information – and stop Gish galloping.

    • If you presented a linked or properly cited study you wanted my comment on I have missed it because of your fish galloping.

      Stop your silliness – if you want to make a point provide your evidence and or citations and link and I respond we can have a discussion. Statements like offering to deliver them to me or similar claims are meaningless.

      We have several outstanding issue on the table – such as you silly comment on fluorosilicic acid. You seem to make wild statements and then run away from them without responding when pulled up.

  • Fluoride from burning coal also destroys teeth. Read the studies. Or would you like me to deliver them to you?

  • Tea –
    On PubMed
    U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health
    PubMed/11355098
    “Dental caries among 10- to 14-year-old children in Ugandan rural areas with 0.5 and 2.5 mg fluoride per liter in drinking water”

    Can you find it or should I post a link?

    • OK, that is what I mean – a proper citation – journal, etc., with a link.

      Two comments here:
      1: Have you read the paper? – no I don’t mean the abstract. The paper. where you can find information about methodology, sampling, etc. I really can’t comment in detail without reading the full text.
      2: Have you read the title? If so did you take in the fact that it probably relates to two areas where F intake is at optimum levels or excessive? The title is “Dental caries among 10- to 14-year-old children in Ugandan rural areas with 0.5 and 2.5 mg fluoride per liter in drinking water.”
      In NZ we generally aim for 0.7 ppm F in community water fluoridation. In some parts of the world it is lower (yes I have seen 0.5 ppm F) often to account for other sources of F in the diet and also water consumption levels.

      So I can’t see why you think this study is relevant to NZ CWF.

      Have a look at my article Cherry picking fluoridation data. I include graphic illustrations there for NZ data which show a very convincing diffrence between fluoridated and unfluoridasted areas in NZ. I also discuss who the difference is currently appearing to decline, probably because of the introduction of the hub and spoke school dental clinic model in NZ.

  • optimum levels = misnomer

    You can’t actually believe that.

    The only things that don’t currently have fluoride are distilled water and that is a big IF.

    There are just too many sources of fluoride to even suggest “optimal levels” of fluoride when it is already inescapable. No one is being deprived of fluoride. But it is making money for someone. Even if it destroys your teeth.

    • So, I have to assume, Ima, you accept my comments on the paper you linked to and wish not to discuss that further. It doesn’t support your arguments.

      Or is this just another Gish gallop?

      I would prefer you acknoweldge your attempt failed before moving on.

  • You know you are trying to make heads or tails out of pseudoscience right?

    If the “benefits” of fluoride were based on hardcore science, there could be no “cherry-picking” by either side. It just couldn’t happen.

    Counting cavities = pseudoscience
    Lab work = science

    • Come on Ima. You either accept my comments about the paper you linked to or you don’t.

      If you don’t I want to hear a countering response.

      Gish galloping will get you banned.

      • You are now Gish galloping again Ima. I will not approve any more comments from you until you attend to the one currently under discussion.

        Do you accept that the paper you quoted was irrelevant to the discussion? If not, please advance your own arguments.

  • I read this:
    “In the high-fluoride district, age and consumption of tea with sugar were positively and significantly correlated with caries.”

    That’s all I needed to read.

    The fluoride in the tea did not prevent caries in these children.

    • Of course there was no added effect compared with the already optimum level of F. However, higher consumption rates of sugar explain increase in caries.

    • Yes, Ima, I will continue to not approve obvious Gish galloping. This seem’s to be the only way to focus your attention, unfortunately.

      If we are now finshed with the paper – if you akcnowledge it did not support your argument – then we can move on.

    • Why do you not accept what I said? Please note, I am not requesting you approve what I said – far from it, just asking for a reason. That is how rational discussion proceeds. We need to deal with one question at a time.

  • I’m wasting my time with you and your censoring. No more comments that you choose to ignore anyway. If you get around to my first posts and shoot them down with some logic, I might return.

  • Ken, I admire your patience.

    The image that my mind produces of Ima is someone with fingers in ears saying “La la la la… Not listening!”

    • Well he seems to have run away now after showing he was unable to read the title of a paper correctly. The other reason for his desertion is very likely realisation that he is not going to get away with saturation Gish galloping.

      A win-win situation – good riddance.