The "Fuzzy Math" of Fluoride Promotion

I guess you weren't referring to my verbosity in post #34. Anyway, tooth decay later may be facilitated by inadequate levels of minerals during pre-natal development. But, then, there are a lot of bad things which come as a result of inadequate pre-natal nutrition or pre-natal disease or pre-natal exposure to drugs. The situation in this thread, though, reminds me of Marvin's reply to Arthur Dent's question, "It amazes me how you can live in anything that small."

Think: why don't they make little plumbing add-ons that you can use to fluoridate your own house's water supply without affecting your neighbor? Because the chemical is so toxic, that's why.

Toxic? You mean like chlorine?

The reason we have fluoridated water supplies is because it is by far the cheapest way to do it (about 50 cents per person per year).

But how can something at the concentration of 0.8 parts per MILLION, be toxic? It is an oft used truism by toxicologists. "The dose makes the poison". And there has yet to be studies that fluoride is toxic at anything even near that level.

And since only around 62% of the municipal water supplies are fluoridated, obviously there are people who have decided not to add fluoride to their water. It is exactly the way the founders envisioned decisions like this being made. Each individual community deciding for themselves.

I guess you weren't referring to my verbosity in post #34.

Hardly, I just get tired of these people who cannot have a conversation. They speak in document dumps, hoping to hide their stupidity under an avalance of irrelevant words and facts.

For example, he posts studies as if they are the difinitive, end-all to this story, yet I have easily 50 studies showing fluorides effectiveness and safety for every one he has. They haven't a clue how studies like that work. You see the same for the MMR vaccine, if you go to an anti-vaccination website, you STILL see the Wakefield study, even though it was discredited years ago.

The situation in this thread, though, reminds me of Marvin's reply to Arthur Dent's question, "It amazes me how you can live in anything that small."

You know, I always get a kick out of going to the threads discussing breaing news like a plane crash or bomb explosion or the like. Just to read the paranoid rantings of the fringe around here. It is very interesting (and more than milidly frustrating) how they can tie together the most diverse events into a global conspiracy.

Wonderful how the human mind works sometimes, no?

So any word on med school yet?

Common manifestations of fluoride toxicity as manifested in countries with natural fluoridated water supplies are skeletal fluorosis - early signs mimic arthritis - and gastric distress, similar to Irritable Bowel Syndrome and thyroid problems. Which of those studies you listed studied skeletal fluorosis, arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome and thyroid problems in relation to fluoride intake from all sources. People with malfunctioning kidneys also have a problem excreting fluoride propertly.

How much fluoride is enough to reduce tooth decay without unwanted fluorosis? And how much fluoride do children consume from all sources and what are those sources?

Tom asked "Since fluoride is a naturally occurring substance, and many areas of the country have it in concentrations many times higher than what is added to water supplies, and communities have been drinking that water for hundreds of years, why don't we see pockets of illness in all these areas?"

NYSCOF answers: This a plea for help from fluoride afflicted people in India:

Here's the website: http://www.nalgonda.org/letter.htm

Here are excerpts:

We may not be the first or the last to speak our anguish in words - or to squeak under very young bones; Several generations before us used those same bones as instruments to carry us this long. As a testimony to their success, we are still here.

We chose to speak today on an issue that is fundamental to our existence. We are the people who are cursed by the lack of very basic - safe drinking water.

Our bones are brittle, our teeth come in color, we seem to age faster and our babies do not have normal childhood - all works out to a different life style.

All of this we owe it to Flouride.

Here are pictures:
http://www.nalgonda.org/flourinevictim.htm

Common manifestations of fluoride toxicity as manifested in countries with natural fluoridated water supplies are skeletal fluorosis - early signs mimic arthritis - and gastric distress, similar to Irritable Bowel Syndrome and thyroid problems. Which of those studies you listed studied skeletal fluorosis, arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome and thyroid problems in relation to fluoride intake from all sources. People with malfunctioning kidneys also have a problem excreting fluoride propertly.

You seem to be missing my point. I can go to any town in the midwest that has natural fluoride levels many times the optimum, and see none of the maladys you list. You must understand that because fluoride is naturally occurring, and ocurring at diffierent concentrations, we have had a natural labratory for over a hundred years to study fluoride. In the early part of the 20th century you had people living in isolated towns in the west all their lives with extremely high fluoride levels, concurrently, you had other isolated towns no more than 50-100 miles away with low fluoride levels. You could then look at these areas for changes in health. None were ever found.

We can still do that now. Since not every municipal water supply is fluorideated you have the unique situation where one town will be fluoridated and a nearby town won't. It would be a very easy thing to compare disease rates and prove your allegaions. But, of course, no conclusive evidence exists.

Now, will you PLEASE answer my question? And please explain what you mean by "decay starts in the womb".

All of this we owe it to Flouride

Please, save your histrionics for someone else, it means nothing to me. You didn't even attempt to answer the question.

So this leaves us with the unanswerable question, at least to the anti-fluoridationists. Since fluoride is a naturally occurring substance, and many areas of the country have it in concentrations many times higher than what is added to water supplies, and communities have been drinking that water for hundreds of years, why don't we see pockets of illness in all these areas?

So any word on med school yet?

No, in the words of the Stones song, "I Am Waiting". I'm still on the wait-list and have not yet been contacted. Someone told me she's heard of people getting the call during the first week of classes and being told to come down and get their books because classes have already been in session for a couple of days. That would be interesting.

All of this we owe it to Flouride
Please, save your histrionics for someone else, it means nothing to me. You didn't even attempt to answer the question.

NYSCOF says: These were not my words. Had you simply clicked on the link, you would have known that.

So this leaves us with the unanswerable question, at least to the anti-fluoridationists. Since fluoride is a naturally occurring substance, and many areas of the country have it in concentrations many times higher than what is added to water supplies, and communities have been drinking that water for hundreds of years, why don't we see pockets of illness in all these areas?

NYSCOF says:
Abstracts from Scientific journals:

Fluoride and Hip Fractures
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#Hip

Fluoride and Cancer
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#cancer

Fluoride and Thyroid Disorders
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#thyroid

Fluoride’s Impact on the Brain
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#Brain

Fluoride and Pineal Gland
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#pineal

Fluoride and Elevated Blood Lead Levels
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#lead

Fluoride and the Reproductive System
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#reproductive

Fluoride and Arthritis
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#arthritis

Fluoride and Gastrointestinal Ailments
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#gastrointestinal

Fluoride and Skin Disorders
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#Skin

Fluoridation Cessation Studies: Cavities Don’t Increase when fluoridation ends
http://www.fluoridealert.org/abstracts.htm#cessation

So I guess you aren't going to answer my question. That's all right, I never expected one.

Concerning the studies you clipped. I recognize some of them, and they don't say what the anti-fluoridationists say they do, and, since I posted many, many more studies show fluoride is safe and effective, the preponderance of evidence is on my side, no?

So, I ask the question again! Looking at your post, you give a laundry list of maladys that fluoridation supposedly causes. Now I would point out that even the most toxic substance on the planet doesn't cause half the problems listed there, so that should be an indication what a fallacy this is. And since there are, in your mind, specified diesases that are casued by fluoridation, why don't we see elevated numbers in fluoridated cities vs. cities that don't have fluoridation.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain what you mean by "decay starts in the womb".

"But how can something at the concentration of 0.8 parts per MILLION, be toxic?"

If you regularly drank water at 0.8 parts per million of 2,3,7,8 TCDD (aka, "dioxin") you would be anywhere from having a really severe case of chloracne to dead (probably dead...but I don't think there's any evidence of anyone ever regularly drinking water that contaminated with dioxin).

If you regularly drank water with 0.8 parts per million of arsenic, you would almost certainly exhibit symptoms of arsenic poisoning, and would have more than a 1 in 10 chance of being killed by it. (See below. Note: 500 micrograms per liter equals 0.5 ppm.)

http://www.who.int/bulletin/pdf/2000/issue9/bu0751.pdf

If you regularly drank water with 0.8 parts of methylmercury, you would probably die of mercury poisoning.

In short, there are a number of substances that are toxic at a concentration of 0.8 parts per million in water. (Note: I'm not necessarily implying that fluoride is one of them.)

I could never understand the uproar over flouridation -- my father (God rest his soul) was a conspiracy theorist of the first order and he thought it was all a communist plot, which I thought a little strange. I mean why would the communists want us all to have strong teeth?

Precious bodily fluids, aye!

I humbly grovel on the floor whimpering my mea culpas.

You are absolutely correct, and I don't know what made me say that. I should have known better. Thanks for the correction.

You do bring up and interesting point regarding the dose making the poison. You mentioned the toxicity of arsenic, and we've all been assailed with the dem spin on arsenic in the water. Yet arsenic is considered an essential trace nutirent for humans. If we are to believe our paranoid friend's assertions, a substance is either good or bad, and that obviously isn't the case.

Once again, thanks for the correction.

"I humbly grovel on the floor whimpering my mea culpas."

Ay carrumba! Rise, my good man! :-) We all make mistakes. (See below.)

"Yet arsenic is considered an essential trace nutirent for humans."

I could be wrong here (see above), but as far as I know, arsenic hasn't been--at least until potentially very recently)--considered "an essential trace nutrient for humans."

*Selenium* is definitely such a substance...toxic at fairly low doses, but still "considered an essential trace nutrient for humans." That's why one can buy vitamin tablets that purposefully contain selenium.

I *have* heard about recent studies that indicate that arsenic may be beneficial at very low doses. That is, until recently, the U.S. EPA limit for drinking water was 50 parts per billion (ppb); it's now been lowered to 10 ppb (to take effect some years from now). But new research has suggested that somewhere between 50 ppb and 0 ppb may actually be beneficial. Interesting stuff.

I could be wrong here (see above), but as far as I know, arsenic hasn't been--at least until potentially very recently)--considered "an essential trace nutrient for humans."

With the recent Congressional screaming about arsenic, I'm not sure if the powers that be have definitely crowned arsenic as an essential trace nutrient, although I've have read it listed as such in a few articles.

Although I'll keep in mind selenium as yet another instance of a toxic substance that is necessary for life. I've found this is by far one of the most powerful arguments to use against the "fluoride is toxic" allegation.

How about we call the arsenic debate a draw? ;-))))

"With the recent Congressional screaming about arsenic, I'm not sure if the powers that be have definitely crowned arsenic as an essential trace nutrient, although I've have read it listed as such in a few articles."

Hmmm...Steven Milloy. I'd look farther. ;-)

Here's a nice little website (why I love the Internet):

http://www.eagle-min.com/faq/faq94.htm

"Diet recommendations: It is inappropriate at present to give dietary recommendations for arsenic for humans because of questions of its essentiality. Based on animal studies, however, amounts of arsenic in the diet that lead to signs of arsenic deficiency can be extrapolated to humans. The suggested arsenic requirement for animals is between 25 and 50 ng As/g (based on diets containing 4000 kcal/kg). Extrapolated to the human population, this dietary intake is equal to 12.5 to 25 µg As/day. Human diets normally contain 12 to 50 µg As/day. Thus, the postulated arsenic requirement for humans apparently can be met by typical diets. However, there may be dietary situations where the requirement for arsenic is not met (for example, low dietary arsenic coupled with an altered methionine metabolism or hemodialysis)."

Also (from another page on that website):

"Just because a mineral is thought to be toxic today doesn't mean that it really has no biological value. Not so long ago we did not know what the vitamin pantothenic acid was for. Today we know it is a member of the B-complex family and its functions are many. Recently the mineral arsenic has been identified as having biological value and FDA is considering adding it to the RDI for human nutrition."

"Although I'll keep in mind selenium as yet another instance of a toxic substance that is necessary for life. I've found this is by far one of the most powerful arguments to use against the 'fluoride is toxic' allegation."

Careful! As you so appropriately noted, "The dose is the poison." What you meant to say, I think, is something like, "...this is by far one of the most powerful arguments to use against the 'fluoride is toxic' AT THE LEVELS IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER allegation." (Emphasis added for effect. Sentence is clutsy, I'll admit.)

"How about we call the arsenic debate a draw?"

You seem like such a nice fellow, I don't see any need to "debate." I thought we were discussing an item of mutual interest.

I have no particular strong opinions about the issue of fluoride in drinking water. I'm an environmental engineer, so the topic is of some interest to me. But it's not my particular area of interest or expertise.

I thought one of the others in this discussion (or debate) made a good point, if indeed the number of cavities avoided is so small (i.e. less than 1% avoided). On the other hand, I have no doubt that fluoridation (as you pointed out) is inexpensive. (So we're not paying an "arm and a leg" so to speak.) And I agree that one would be hard-pressed to show really significant adverse health effects in the doses found in municipal drinking water. At least for the vast majority of the population.

Best wishes,
Mark

The studies you link to that show fluoride is safe and effective are entirely bogus, most of the studies refer to non existant people or organisations or studies that have not been done by the people or organisations referred to.
The small number of geniune studies have been carried out in a manner that was designed to find the required result by manipulating or missrepresenting data. There have been no reliable and trustworthy studies that show that fluoride is safe and effective.

A typical toxic substance could kill in seconds whilst being unable to cause any of the maladies that are attributed to fluoride if a person were to be able somehow to survive taking the toxic susbstance on a regular basis.
Your point on toxic subtances is ignorant and
irrational.

Many reliable and trustworthy studies have shown
that there are elevated incidences of all the problems described where fluoride intake is elevated.

These studies are easy to find and authenticate.

It is believed that fluorides and fluoride compounds have
effects on brain function rendering people docile,
easily influenced and stupid. This was where the
communist plot idea came from.
If it were true it would explain a few things.

It is often the case that people who are in favour of
fluoridation ingest relatively large quantities of it by both using fluoridated products and not avoiding fluoridated water. Because of the possible brain function effects of fluoride it shows why pro fluoride people are so easily coninced of its worth.