Whatever You Do, Don't Stop Paying Attention to the Fluoridation Debate

Categories: Schutze

beakers.jpg
Wikipedia
The science on fluoridation of drinking water gets less settled all the time.

I have a column in the newspaper this week about drinking water fluoridation and a controversy that kicked up recently when three Dallas City Council members responded politely to an anti-fluoridation activist. Dallas Morning News columnist Jacquielynn Floyd was acerbic, choleric and apoplectic, invoking the Red Scare, Howdy Doody and Davy Crockett to convey the insult she felt the anti-fluoridationists had inflicted on the city by casting doubt on the practice of putting fluoride in the water to prevent tooth decay.

Right after she lambasted the council members for not lambasting the activists, the local dental society issued a statement calling the activists fear-mongers and urging public officials not to listen to them. I say in my piece in the paper that the dentists behind that one may have been out of dental school too long.

You may have to be certain age to understand the furor of dentists and pundits when confronted with any criticism of fluoridation. I'm that age and a half, so I do get it. Putting fluoride in drinking water was one of the grand symbolic gestures of the 1950s, when polio was being cured and science and technology were rampant on a field of seemingly endless victories. The people who rose up against fluoride really were the troglodytes, and everyone who has gone through dental school since then has been taught to deride and despise them.

See also: In Dallas, an Anti-Fluoride Movement for Once Not Dismissed

But this is no longer a dental school issue. In my column I refer you to an article in the February issue of the Lancet, the medical journal that has chronicled every major medical breakthrough from Louis Pasteur's discovery of the principle of vaccination to the discovery of a possible cause for SARS disease. The article, "Neurobehavioral effects of developmental toxicity," is a global survey of research on neurotoxins and human brain development.

One thing I learned from it -- something I sure missed if it has been in the news much -- is that fluoride is one of six chemicals added since 2006 to a list of what are now 11 known causes of diminished or deformed brain development in human fetuses and infants.

There's a big caveat to be stated right here. The authors of this paper make no claims up or down about the safety of water fluoridation in the United States. The studies they refer to measuring human I.Q. loss associated with fluoride were all carried out in China, and the authors point out that fluoride dosages to which children are exposed there may well be higher than what children and pregnant women experience here from drinking water.

But they also point out that no one knows what a safe fluoride dose is for a developing brain, and experience with other, better-known neurotoxins, lead for example, indicate that developing brains are permanently damaged by much smaller doses than those associated with adult poisoning: "Joint analyses that gathered data for lead-associated I.Q. deficits from seven international studies support the conclusion that no safe level of exposure to lead exists," they report.

One problem is that compared with gross physical birth defects caused by chemicals, developmental brain damage is barely on public health radar, according to the authors. They say: "David P. Rall, former director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, once noted that, 'if thalidomide had caused a 10-point loss of I.Q. instead of obvious birth defects of the limbs, it would probably still be on the market.'"

In addition to fluoride, the authors cite substances that interfere with what is called "endocrine signaling" in fetal and early childhood brain development. They do not name the type of endocrine disruptors that weresprayed on us from airplanes last summer as part of the campaign against West Nile, but my understanding from the scientists I talked to about it then is that an endocrine disruptor is an endocrine disruptor. It can cause a developing brain to miss a hormonal signal intended to trigger a certain step in development, and once one of those waypoints has been missed, it can never be recouped. There is no going back. That brain is permanently damaged.

Let me re-state an important reality about the Lancet article: It does not say that American water fluoridation is harmful. It does state two things emphatically, however: Fluoride exposure has been scientifically linked to permanent I.Q. deficits in children in China, and we have no idea what it's doing to children here because we haven't done the studies here.

So, look, I love my own dentist. I have always regarded dentists as solid pillars of any community I have lived in, and I know that their profession, practice and research are all based on science. I don't love Jacquielynn Floyd, but I like her stuff a lot.
But it's absolutely wrong to think we can afford to shut down the debate on fluoride or any other neurotoxin because of a cultural association with people who worry about neurotoxins. This isn't coonskin caps and anti-communism. This is all new, powerful and urgent. Not worrying about it would be the crazy thing.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
85 comments
hankblackgraphics
hankblackgraphics

Good article again. Don't even look??!!  Don't listen? Cast insults?  That is your high ground?  I asked that the council look at the issue.  For that crime I am called names, subjected to idiotic shrill parroting of miracle memes.  Very few of my detractors know anything else. In the name of science, no less.  Science is the opposite of that. Science is studying evidence, including studies you haven't seen yet. It can involve listening to knowledgeable people you may not know about. Most of my critics did not know that there were any recognized studies about the dangers of mass fluoridation.

Do they know which countries have the least cavities? (Fluoride free ones, UN WHO)  Do they know Park Cities doesn't fluoridate?  That China and Israel have decided it is time to halt the practice?

Do they know that even the pro-fluoride authorities have now pronounced it is a bad idea to give it to our very young?  Do they know they have pronounced that ALL benefit is topical, meaning swabs or toothpaste?         Do they drink suntan oil? 

Do they know that dentists have nothing to do with our concerns?  Truly, you can have all the fluoride you want.  No one will be deprived.  No need to shove it down my throat. Ditto toothless babies.

Do they know that it is officially an industrial toxic waste, very expensive to dispose of sans miracles?  Do they know how poisonous it is?  It is right near arsenic.  It is an excellent pesticide and rat poison? * Do they know what bio-accumulate means? .  I have seen these creative geniuses compare it to Vitamin D, because you can overdose on that too.

Do they know that it is a uniquely foolish breach of medical ethics and international law to medicate people without informed consent and supervision?  I personally am speaking out because this part of the issue is so clear. 

I don't want the council to listen to me and my fears; I don't want them to be swayed by you and your fears.  Much has been learned in the last 50 years, but not well publicized.  I want them to give a fair hearing to the 'experts' and champions of both sides, in an organized manner, not in a circus of 3 minute sound bites. Both sides accuse each other of wanting to turn back the clock on progress, and of being unscientific, in fact incapable of scientific reasoning.

There are three areas to address, efficacy, safety, and medical ethics.

The dentists only have standing in the efficacy department, but I don't understand why some non-fluoridated communities have less cavities than us, and why dentists ignore the recent admissions that topical application is the way to go. They have no standing, compared to toxicologist, neuroscientists, and endocrinologists, and public health researchers in the safety department.  They also have no particular standing on the issue of informed consent, morality, and legality.  This is where the less technically specialized population, including the City Council, have a say, and will show their colors.

Do not be cowed by insults. The city must give it a fair hearing. That is the only demand.  Learn something.


* http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/pesticides.tcl?edf_substance_id=7681-49-4



observerreader
observerreader

Adding fluoride to water is forced medication without even the slightest concern about our Constitutional right NOT TO BE MEDICATED if we so choose. And I so choose. As for a slight economic impact, I am no longer eating in Dallas restaurants because there is forced fluoridation in all of their glasses of tea and cups of coffee and all foods cooked with water in any way. "Yea" to the Park Cities whose City Councils are MUCH more intelligent in their deliberations and much more CARING about the RIGHTS and overall HEALTH of their citizens, whose concerns they are sworn to represent - whether they do or not. Readers, please join me in the boycott of Dallas restaurants until the City Counsel of Dallas comes to its senses and stops listening to the promoters of fluoride and the debunkers of those opposed to fluoridation. Greed and lust for power are an infectious disease running rampant today in the corporate and the political consciousnesses. Corporate control of government by whatever means is the classic definition of fascism. Fluoride has been soundly rejected for decades all over Europe. Over the years tooth decay has declined just as rapidly in non-fluoridated areas as in those with fluoridated water, and studies promoting its effect on reducing tooth decay are flawed by considering only the fluoridated communities and omitting the comparison with non-flouridated communities, "studies" driven by greed and lust for power. Read about the experience in Finland, where only one city had fluoride added to their water and the eventual cessation of fluoridation in that community and nation. Enough corporate money will always buy one or two very "credentialed" debunkers. Do your own study. Don't listen to them or people like me. Strive to KNOW for yourself, not just BELIEVE someone, even if they have a string of PhD's and other credentials. Love of money is the root of all evil, and the consciousness infected with the rampant virus of greed and lust for power always strives for the top positions in any organization. That's why a well-educated, well-motivated, and active public is the only guarantee of maintaining freedom in this world. As Yuri Bezmenov (former KGB agent; YouTube interview) stated, America is the last bastion of freedom on this Earth. And this is part of it, and it’s in your lap.

gaiaspeaks2
gaiaspeaks2

FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER

A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EPA'S STANDARDS
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES


THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571

Brain:
"..it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with
functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means..." p.222

Cancer
"...osteosarcoma (bone cancer) is of particular concern as a potential
effect of fluoride..." p.336 (NOTE:The Bassin/Harvard study published a
few months after the NAS report found a 500% increase in bone cancer in boys
exposed to fluoride in drinking water. -Cancer Causes Control, 2006)

Diabetes:
"...sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood
glucose or impaired glucose intolerance in some individuals and to increase the
severity of some types of diabetes." p.260

Endocrine
System: "Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense
of altering normal endocrine function..." p.266

Kidney
Disease: "Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of
fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues... The effect of low doses of fluoride
on kidney... functions in humans needs to be carefully documented..."
p.303

Thyroid
Disease: "The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in
experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function..."
p.8

WhiteWhale
WhiteWhale

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. 

Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love... Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I — I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.

 General Jack Ripper - Dr. Strangelove

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

Steven D. Slott, I would be sincerely interested to hear you address the recent Lancet article and talk about issues of brain development rather than adult toxicity. Really. You seem well informed and experienced in this arena. Your thoughts would be welcome.

2nagels
2nagels

Thank you for your very reasonable comments, Jim.  We do well to remember that minds are like parachutes:  they only function when open.  Some comments here come from folks who'd rather crash than consider the possibility that their preconceptions might need to be modified.


Re: US studies of fluride neurotoxicity.  Some were conducted on lab animals at Harvard's Forsyth Dental Clinic by toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix in the 1990's.  She found both prenatal and postnatal effects on behavior with levels of exposure comparable to fluoridated drinking water.  She was put under great pressure to suppress her findings by Forsyth and by the NIDH.  When she did publish them she was fired from Forsyth.


As far as IQ deficits going unnoticed, the National Assessment of Educational Progress reported last week stagnation of mathematics achievement among American students and actual declines in reading scores.  There are obviously many factors that go into educational achievement, but given other information about fluoride's neurotoxicity there's no reason to discount fluoridation as one of them.  The effect of IQ loss on a population is that it shifts the center of the bell curve downward, increases the number of intellectually challenged and decreases the number of geniuses.  Not exactly a formula for success in a competitive world.


The ethical and scientific thing to do would be to look at the possibilities.  The unscientific thing is to continue to close our eyes and jump and refuse to pull the cord.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

The comment monster is back lol

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

Enough about flouride Jim, why don't you love Jacquieline Floyd?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

But no, science is NEVER influenced by political agendas, public opinion or money.


Fluoridated water is good, Jim.  That is the science!  An overwhelming consensus has been reached by the scientists, years ago.  Anyone who speaks out against adding fluoride to water must be a mouth-breathing, goat-herding, christian conservative, republican peckerwood.  They're the ONLY ones who would dare question the scientific facts as presented by the establishment.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

Drink bottled water, use fluoridated toothpaste.

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

@hankblackgraphics


Dear Hank,

I think that the fluoridation proponents know science better than you.  Pardon the impertinence, but it appears you are just repeating what pops up on your computer, e.g. "Drink suntan lotion." 

For one thing, several systematic reviews of fluoride and fluoridation research have been conducted.  Systematic reviews of research are the gold standard in science.  These panels look at the relevance of each of hundreds of study and their quality.  These are efforts that often last several years. 

Five such systematic reviews have been done, and they all have found no credible evidence of harm, but considerable benefit from fluoridation.   The CDC links to these reviews:

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/systematic.htm

An Israeli court has ruled that communities don't have to fluoridate.  And much of China suffers from high levels of environmental fluoride, as with the burning of coal.


Sorry, the consensus is that ingesting fluoridated water allows teeth to be continually remineralized via the saliva.  This provides round the clock protection, something that other forms of fluoride can't duplicate. Systemic fluoride is also important in strengthening tooth buds in the very young.  They need fluoride, as well, but in smaller amounts.  But they drink smaller amounts.

"Industrial waste" is a scaremongering term. The fluoride supplement added to water is produced along with fertilizer -- both made from common earth minerals. 


Several courts have looked at the "mass medication" charge and dismissed it.  Fluoridation is considered a public health measure that adjusts the level of fluoride ions in community water, with a wide margin of safety.  It is similar to the requirement that some food be fortified with folic acid to avoid certain birth defects. 

Citizens are free to filter fluoride from their water, but those few people should not be able to deprive the community of being free from dental disease. 

Fluoridation is something that should be determined by the health department.  It is their responsibility to understand the science on public health measures.

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

@gaiaspeaks2

Take a closer look. 

The NRC study was about large amounts of naturally-occurring fluoride in water which helped the EPA set an upper limit, over which communities should start removing fluoride from their drinking water.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@JimSX

I would be sincerely interested in why my logic of application as opposed to ingestion was mocked by you, given the science I presented to support the idea.

kferre512
kferre512

@2nagels You have NOT a clue about causation/correlation:


When the weather gets hot, the consumption of ice increases.


When the weather gets hot, violent crime goes up.


Therefore, when the consumption of ice cream goes up, violent crime goes up, and there must be a relationship between the two.


Mullinex fed rats 75, 125, and 150 ppm to rats.  Sorry, how that correlates to human's drinking fluoridated at optimal levels around 1.0 ppm is pure fiction.

sslott1
sslott1

@TheRuddSki  

The valid science has long been settled on the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.  It is only those such as Mr. Schultze, who accord undue credence to uninformed activists, who fan the flames of these zealots and make "controversy" where none exists.  

The overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare is fully in support of the public health initiative of water fluoridation.   There is not one single, respected organization, worldwide, which opposes it.  If that isn't "settled" science, then none exists.


Steven D. Slott, DDS

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

No, hence potholes.

mewkins
mewkins

@TheRuddSki  Good thinking. Enjoy some Bisphenol A (an endocrine disruptor) with your unflouridated water.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  

I am going to guess your field is not science. I am going to guess your field is not logic. I am not going to guess what your field is.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

Now I think you made a valid point. Just didn't get it at first. Sorry. Blame it on BPS.

It seems to be impossible, by the way, to get this comment software to work from an IPAD.

2nagels
2nagels

@kferre512 @2nagelsYou seem to be the clueless one. Of course correlation does not prove causality. That's the whole point about the decline of tooth decay over the last 60 years.  Correlation with fluoridation does not prove that fluoridation was responsible.  Especially since the same decline occurred in areas of the US and the rest of the world where there was no fluoridation.

Before fluoride's iteration as a dental panacea it was widely used as a rat poison.  You can't give high doses of fluoride to rats. It kills them.  The same is true of the NTP cancer study.  They had to give doses comparable to what could be received via fluoridated water. And the test rats developed two types of cancer.


I said fluoridation could be a possible factor in the stagnation of academic achievement in the US.  No one could ever postulate that it's the only one.  Since there are so many other variables, it would be just about impossible to design a study to actually test that hypothesis.  But, since fluoridation is unethical, ineffective and linked to various health risks, it makes sense to stop doing it. And maybe, along with many other interventions, we hopefully will see some improvement on the academic front.  That would be especially welcome in the education of dental professionals.

nyscof
nyscof

@kferre512 Mullenix was shocked by her own findings that fluoride even got into the brain. She initially thought her research was a waste of time but was instigated by Harold Hodge who had an early hand in fluoridation and who knew about fluoride brain toxicity. Mullenix  called for more studies that would have settled the issue; but they were never done.  Why not? 

dan_germouse
dan_germouse

@kferre512 @2nagels

The Fairy doesn't have a clue about toxicology. It's funny how the forced-fluoridation fanatics are quite happy to pretend that correlation equals causation when it comes to their poor quality studies.

2nagels
2nagels

@sslott1 @TheRuddSkiThat's your first misconception, Dr. Steven D. Slott, DDS.  Science is never "settled".  It's dynamic and ever-changing.  It was once believed and proclaimed by US government authorities that leaded gasoline and asbestos were safe. There were lots of endorsements of those claims, because that was the convenient and politic thing to do. But those proclamations proved mistaken.  Doctors endorsed cigarettes and they were handed out like candy to our GI's.  Oops, that was another mistake.  

Fluoridation was a mistake from the outset, but somehow it clicked with the inferiority complex of the dental profession and they glommed onto it with a passion rarely seen since the geocentrism controversy.  People didn't want to give up their beliefs in lead, asbestos and cigarettes, but gradually they did.  However, far too many dentists with limited understanding of science and professional ethics cling fiercely to the foolish mistake of fluoridation.  Too bad, because it's so silly and reflects so badly on the competence and integrity of the dental profession. Defending fluoridation puts them right back behind the 8 ball, when they could be devoting their energies to much more effective dental health strategies that would gain them respect.

6jwillie
6jwillie

Only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water, more in the U.S. than the rest of the world combined.


On the 6th of August 2013 the Israeli Supreme court ruled that all councils in Israel stop fluoridation by 2014 "because it presents health dangers and its benefits are no longer widely accepted."

Several hundred cities have voted it out in the last few years, including Wichita, Kansas; Portland, Oregon: Santa Fe, New Mexico; Windsor, Ontario; Fairbanks, Alaska; Calgary, Alberta; and over 17 regions in Queensland, Australia, etc., etc. The trend is clear and fluordidation is on the way out.


See the full list of several hundreds of cities rejecting fluoridation here:


http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/communities/.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@sslott1

The solution i offered is the practice of my daughter towards her baby. If any controversy exists, then assume no-one has a definitive answer and act accordingly.

Overwhelming consensus is not the same as guarantee.

Do you find any logical weakness in my daughters application-not-ingestion approach?

Thank you for your professional response, BTW.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mewkins

You know, that was the first thing that came to mind!

But the tendency for endocrine disrupters to cause birth defects, cancerous tumors, learning disabilities and the like is a concern.

Oh, you, like Jim, are probably wondering what my field is. It's Google :)

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@JimSX @TheRuddSki  Fluoride in teeth isn't absorbed by ingestion, it's absorbed by the surface of the teeth. That means that using toothpaste or drinking water is the exact same delivery method, except that drinking the water also puts much higher concentrations into your bloodstream and tissues.


So, if you were worried about fluoride consumption because, oh, I don't know, you read some hack journalist's column in a free rag you found on the street, the trick would be to expose the teeth to fluoride without consuming it.  Like, say, in some paste you rub on the teeth instead.


But, that wouldn't fit with the Observer's mission statement: "Fuck logic and science!"

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@JimSx

I'm going to assume you'll tell me what you mean.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@JimSX

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.

I agree with the ipad probs, been whining about it a while.

BTW, I thought my joke about you eating Ben-Gay was kinda funny, if I do have to say so myself.

sslott1
sslott1

Janet Nagels

Again with the unsubstantiated, personal opinions. You are certainly welcome to yours, but your speculation is irrelevant to the issue of water fluoridation in the absence of even one single scrap of valid evidence to support it.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

wcvemail
wcvemail

@2nagels @kferre512  

Speaking of causality in the decline of tooth decay, two other factors are at play in the last 60 years, rooted in mass media. Those are toothpaste advertising, and rising standards for beauty fostered by that advertising and close-up photography in the media carrying that advertising. I don't know what Clara Bow's or Mary Pickford's teeth looked like up close, but if they were alive today, they would be up-close-and-personal on glossy check-out stand magazine covers.

When people see these impossibly white, straight teeth as a standard of modern beauty, and they're besieged with omnipresent advertising, yeah, people are going to brush more. And the 1944 Sears catalog or the A&P grocery store didn't offer umpteen flossing threads, as we have today in the grocery aisle.


So let's not hasten to crown (heh) fluoridated water as the great preventer of tooth decay. I'm keeping an open mind on this issue as I learn more, so let's all beware false attribution.

sslott1
sslott1

@nyscof @kferre512 

"Shocked"??  Hardly.  She set out to "prove" neurotoxicity.  See my below comment in reply to Janet Nagel.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

sslott1
sslott1

Janet Nagels

Save it. Your nonsensical conspiracy rants are as meaningless as the unsubstantiated personal opinions you continually post.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

@6jwillie These are very misleading statements.

The decision should still be made on the grounds of the scientific findings, and those findings are clear that fluoridation safely reduces tooth decay and the need for dentures.

sslott1
sslott1

Everlastingphelps

Nothing tricky about the question......at least for intelligent persons, anyway.

The optimal,level of fluoride is that concentration, set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at which maximum dental decay prevention is attained with no adverse effects. The current optimal level of fluoride is a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was initially set as a range in recognition of the difference in consumption amounts of water between different climates. Recent studies have shown that, due to air conditioning and other modern amenities and lifestyles, the difference in consumption of water in different climates is no longer significant. In 2011, in recognition of this, as well as of greater opportunities for fluoride exposure now than existed when the optimal was initially set, the U.S. CDC recommended that the optimal level be reset from the current range to simply the lower end of that range, 0.7 ppm. The DHHS has as yet to formally adopt that recommendation, but is expected to do so in the immediate future.

I have no idea as to what you refer with "troll vs troll", but I have long since ceased attempting to decipher the muddled mindset of antifluoridationists.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@sslott1  That's a trick question.  If there are adverse effects then you can just say that level isn't optimal.


Fluoride has dangers.  Ingest too much of it and you can get sick -- just like water.  Fluoride has benefits, and if you don't get enough, you will have bad things happen -- just like water.  


Now, you two go back to troll vs troll and the regulars here can go back to taking smack about Myrna.

sslott1
sslott1

Janet Nagel

Fluoride ions exist "naturally" in water. Humans have been ingesting them in water since the beginning of time. Here's a novel idea for you.......cite any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of optimal level fluoride "absorbed through the skin" or ingested in water.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

2nagels
2nagels

@TheRuddSki Fluorine is the most reactive of all the elements on the periodic table.  It is absorbed by both the teeth and the soft tissues in the mouth.  When showering or bathing or swimming in fluoridated water it is absorbed through the skin.

sslott1
sslott1

@nyscof @sslott1 

No, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you when you atttempt this skewing of Kumar, this study clearly demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more decay resistant.  

Your insidious provision of half-truths in an effort to "support" your position has been demonstrated in previous comments. 

Steven D. Slott, DDS 

nyscof
nyscof

@sslott1 Actually, the study you cite by Kumar and Iida reveals federal statistics which indicate that there is no difference in decay rates as water fluoride levels increase; but the rates of fluorosis do increase

sslott1
sslott1

"Systemic fluoride doesn't counteract tooth decay".

Wrong. Kumar, et al. demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more decay resistant. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically in developing teeth.

----The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren

Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH

"Systemic fluoride pretty pretty much just does things like we see in China."

Such as??

Steven D. Slott, DDS

tyactive47
tyactive47

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Just because it doesn't accumulate in soft tissue over time - doesn't mean that its not circulating in the Saliva though - just like you said.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @TheRuddSki  Systemic fluoride doesn't counteract tooth decay.  Topical fluoride counteracts tooth decay.  Systemic fluoride pretty much just does things like we see in China.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

are you having a problem with focus today?

the question was HOW flouride is absorbed, and as was shown "systemic flouride...is absorbed via the gastrointestional tract".

now you want to argue if the absorbed flouride is beneficial before or after the teeth have appeared ("erupted")?

argue away...

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

good grief, what a waste of bandwidth you are.

when you can show that bottled water does not contain flouride, let me know....otherwise, I posted an accurate statement.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

You post :

"Systemic fluoride is taken into the body through consuming fluoridated water, fluoride supplements or foods and beverages. Once systemic fluoride is absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract"

From the link I provided :

?..researchers have now overwhelmingly rejected the notion that swallowing fluoride is either necessary or effective for preventing decay. Instead, the current consensus is that fluoride’s benefit (whatever it may be) comes from topical contact with teeth after the teeth have erupted into the mouth.

You old farts should keep up with modern science

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

So the fact that even manually fluoridated water falls below gov't recommended range doesn't get your attention.

Why not take up whatever capillary argument you've fixed on with the dentists and dental organizations who, as I noted, point to the increased use of bottled water as a likely culprit for increased youth cavities, because for me at this point the science is settled and the debate is over

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps  I believe the flouride is absorbed by the soft tissues in the mouth, not by the teeth.


Note to the public -- do not base medical and hygiene decisions on Mavdog's beliefs.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

you should have read the whole page.

"Systemic fluoride is taken into the body through consuming fluoridated water, fluoride supplements or foods and beverages. Once systemic fluoride is absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract"

also later on the same page you posted:

"In most cases, the fluoride concentrations in bottled water (even in some that are fluoridated) fall below the U.S. government's recommended range of 0.7-1.2 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, the ideal range to prevent cavities"

yes Virginia, there IS flouride in most bottled water....

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

"It turns out that many dentists and government health officials suspect that the practice of skipping tap water in favor of bottled water may be contributing to rising rates of tooth decay in young children.

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/21/10778671-bottled-water-may-boost-kids-tooth-decay-dentists-say

"Some bottled waters contain fluoride, and some do not. Fluoride can occur naturally in source waters used for bottling or it can be added."

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/bottled_water.htm

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

I believe the flouride is absorbed by the soft tissues in the mouth, not by the teeth.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

Bottled spring water does contain flouride unless it is specifically removed, which isn't done by any of the bottlers unless it is marketed as "flouride free".

flouride is naturally present in the spring/well sources used in the bottling.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@LukeW34

Then Jim would be wrong. The growth of bottled-water use is one of the main reasons cited for the rise in cavities in youth.

Not to say that fluoridated bottled water is not available, but I've never seen it.

LukeW34
LukeW34

@TheRuddSki  I would assume that Jim is talking about the fact that even bottled water has flouride in it.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

Jim's been eating Ben-Gay for years. :)

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...