Cuious(sic) about your position on fluoridation

Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Cuious(sic) about your position on fluoridation

Post by Dardedar »

This was a question posted about a week ago on our Fayetteville Freethinker Facebook page by a fellow we'll call "Tic."

Having had debates with fundamentalists, intellectual cowards and zealots of all stripes for the two decades or so that the internet has existed, I have learned to not waste any time on a forum where the True Believer has access to wipe out the exchange and effectively censor the fact that their side did not come out so well. I've had several exchanges with Tic over the years (climate change, 9/11 conspiracy, "they" are controlling the weather" etc.) and it never goes well for his side. Some of this is buried on Facebook, some of it I have reposted on our forum.

So this morning, Tic, the coward that he is, took it upon himself to delete the entire Facebook thread where several people had taken a few hours to write carefully researched responses to his fluoride questions. He could certainly delete his own comments, but he didn't have the right to delete everyone else's. That's dirty pool. I forgot that a person who starts a thread on Facebook can kill it, but fortunately I have long practiced a contingency habit that takes into consideration when a fundie accidentally hits the delete button in an attempt to hide their bad performance. That is, 90% of the time...

I keep copies.

So Tic's attempt to censor the exchange and delete everyone's comments actually backfires in his face, and that's a good thing. The Facebook thread is for the most part restored, minus his material (except for what is contained in my posts), and it is now archived on this forum for all time or until Jesus returns, whichever comes first.

***
Tic: Cuious(sic) about your position on fluoridation

***
The Fayfreethinkers don't really have official positions on such things. I can give you my opinion.

There seem to be two parts to this questions, or at least I see it in two parts.

a) the scientific question of whether it is harmful/dangerous to add fluoride to drinking water

b) the moral question of whether it is proper/ethical to make a group decision and do something to the drinking water even though some people will be opposed to it.

Regarding "a," from my investigations, I think it is safe. I would agree with the material here:

http://www.skepdic.com/fluoridation

And here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromo ... oride.html

And here: "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control lists water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century."
http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm

But that may be wrong. Europe is much less aggressive about fluoridation. When I mentioned this to a dentist once he made the point of noting that they are also famous for having bad teeth.

Regarding "b," I am sympathetic to the notion that this procedure shouldn't be imposed on everyone. Those who have concerns about it can drink bottled water (I don't remember if there are filters that can take it out), or people interested in having it could add it themselves (but typically this will not happen). Either way, people are going to be grumpy about it. I have talked to dentists who say the difference is profound. Areas that don't have flouridation via adding it to the water will have far more tooth decay and soft teeth problems.

I've thought about making this a Moral Question of the Day at a freethinker meeting because it really is a good question and one without a clear answer.

***

The American Dental Association has an extensive report on this:

http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEven ... _facts.pdf

I'll post their executive summary here. Ticon might want to pay special attention to the second to last point:

***
Fluoridation of community water supplies is the single most effective public health measure to prevent dental decay.

• Throughout more than 60 years of research and practical experience, the overwhelming weight of credible scientific evidence has consistently indicated that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has proclaimed community water fluoridation (along with vaccinations and infectious disease control) as one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

• More than 100 national and international health, service and professional organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental decay.

• Studies prove water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing dental decay by 20-40%, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.

• Community water fluoridation benefits everyone, especially those without access to regular dental care. It is the most efficient way to prevent one of the most common childhood diseases – dental decay (5 times as common as asthma and 7 times as common as hay fever in 5-to-17-year-olds). Without fluoridation, there would be many more than the estimated 51 million school hours lost per year in this country because of dental-related illness.

• Community water fluoridation is the adjustment of fluoride that occurs naturally in water to optimal levels to protect oral health.

• For most cities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs.

• Water that has been fortified with fluoride is similar to fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D and orange juice with vitamin C.

• Simply by drinking water, people can benefit from fluoridation’s cavity protection whether they are at home, work or school.

• The average cost for a community to fluoridate its water is estimated to range from approximately $0.50 a year per person in large communities to approximately $3.00 a year per person in small communities.

• More than two-thirds of the population in the United States are served by public water systems that are optimally fluoridated.

• In the past five years (2000 through 2004), more than 125 U.S. communities in 36 states have voted to adopt fluoridation.

• Fluoridation has been thoroughly tested in the United States’ court system, and found to be a proper means of furthering public health and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation
to be unlawful.

• Be aware of misinformation on the Internet and other junk science related to water fluoridation.

• One of the most widely respected sources for information regarding fluoridation and fluorides is the American Dental Association. The ADA maintains Fluoride and Fluoridation Web pages at

http://www.ada.org/goto/fluoride.
California factsheet: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/F ... ction.aspx

Tons: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

***
Tic: "EPA has already said that they found excessive amount of fluoride cause brittle bones.">>

Then don't have excessive amounts.

Tic: "Fluoride can be obtain by buying toothpaste. When you use it that way it stays in your mouth and you spit it out. When you put it in someones water they ingest it.">>

That's on purpose. Quick story. Was visiting with wife's sister's fiance's father at thanksgiving. He's a semi-retired dentist, has a practice in New Jersey. I think he said he'd been doing it 30+ years or so. So I asked him about these fluoride questions because I find them interesting. I said, "isn't the fluoride in toothpaste enough?" He said, not remotely, there is something about it actually being ingested to get it into the body to have the benefit to the teeth.

He said he had volunteered to go into rural areas and help people who didn't have good consistent access to dental care. He said areas that don't have fluoridation are easily discernible and clearly apparent in the comparatively softer and rotting teeth of the children. He might be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

So what do we have here? Fox lying in their headline and the EPA making a slight adjustment in the fluoride ratio. That's it? Much ado about nothing based upon inaccurate information, like 95% of all conspiracy stories I've looked at.

***
TIC: "You want me to provide numerous studies that show research at each level of fluoride and each different potential problem. The problem is that the research doesn't exist. There is a lack of scientific research on the subject.">>

Holy cow, how could you say that? You need to stop getting your info from ridiculous conspiracy sites. There is *extensive* deep and wide study fluoridation.

See this 1991 report: https://dspace.creighton.edu/xmlui/bits ... sequence=1

See this referenced fact sheet: "Community Water Fluoridation: Questions and Answers"

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sh ... _qa.htm#12

A lifetime supply here: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

Have you looked at anything *other* than the conspiracy stuff, because it's not apparent that you have from your nonstop defense of, and peddling of, the conspiracy stuff.

TIC: "In the link below you will find a member of the EPA that wants to force congress into a new hearing on the safety of fluoride.">>

In the link below you will find a very thorough response to Dr. Hirzy's concerns and claims:

http://www.keepersofthewell.org/gov_res ... ponse2.pdf

TIC: "Fluoride isn't a nutrient used in our body.">>

Fluoride isn't necessary to live, and neither is having teeth. But having teeth is nice. So we add fluoride to the water. The results have been so successful that the CDC considers "water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century." --ibid

Is that conclusion based upon a government desire to poison us and the CDC is just trying to cover it up?

TIC: "The EPA dropped acceptable levels after they decided they were too high and were causing problems after 50+ years of higher doses.">>

They tweaked it slightly. Different communities were already providing considerably different amounts. They lowered the peak a bit. That's what science does, always adjusting and improving.

TIC: "That means until they lowered it just recently that they admit it was causing problems,">>

You are misunderstanding the problem because you get your information from zealots and quacks (as far as I can tell, Hirzy is a zealot, but not a quack).

Read about fluorosis here: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/ ... orosis.htm

Note: "Most dental fluorosis in the U.S. – about 92 percent – is very mild to mild, appearing as white spots on the tooth surface that in many cases only a dental professional would notice."

#11: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sh ... _qa.htm#12

TIC: "i say we need more independent research to show us its safe.">>

I say that was done decades ago.

TIC: "The science is small on this topic...">>

That's ludicrous. You're just unaware of the science. Get off the youtube and do some reading for pity sake! Science isn't done by claims thrown out at a congressional hearing!

TIC: "please provide me with the benefits of consuming fluoride.">>

Easy: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/benefits/background.htm

And here: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/fluoridation.html

TIC: "Lets evaluate some of the claims they make. "Does water fluoridation cause a decrease in bone health? No."
Current research indicates that, in large enough doses,...">>

That's why we don't give it in large doses. Large enough doses of anything causes death.

TIC: "The EPA has said that fluoride in high doses causes bone brittleness.">>

Then don't take it in large doses. Water in large doses causes drowning.

TIC: "the fact that when this [fluoride] is transported it has a toxic waste symbol on it and that people handling it wear hazmat suits.">>

Relevance to fluoridation of water at minute amounts = exactly zero.

TIC: "Kids don't have the option to buy bottled water,">>

I bet lots of bottled water has it too, most bottled water is usually from the tap.

TIC: "Did you notice that most of these scientific sources the California government provided were from the 50's, 60's, and 70,s and the most recent ones were 20 years old.">>

When science is sound, it can be timeless.

TIC: "Oh, look the CDC says fluoride was a great social victory" it must be true.">>

And they refer to hundreds of studies backing the claim up. That you aren't aware of the depth of research, is not their fault.

TIC: Why are infants targeted for benefit of fluoride when they have no teeth?">>

They aren't targeted, and they do have teeth (they're in the gums).

TIC: "Also the CDC has suggested to make your infant formula with bottled water that has a lower fluoride level in it. Could just be an oversight i understand.">>

Flurosis only happens to infants and the very young, so it's important the little buggers don't get too much. If you read these very basic and introductory sites I've provided, you would know this.

TIC: "Intelligent Anti-Fluoride Statement - Dr. J. William Hirzy" --video

Again, see an extensive response to his claims and questions here: http://www.keepersofthewell.org/gov_res ... ponse2.pdf

***

TIC: "Darrell your claim was that fluoride ingestion has a benefit to your teeth,">>

Yes, I said I talked to a dentist with 30 years of experience who said this. This is also consistent with what I have read at these standard sources I have been providing and referring to.

TIC: "not fluoride in your mouth as you posted a response too.">>

It's not either or. Fluoride in the mouth, via toothpaste does some of it, but apparently, according to all of these standard sources who know a bit more about it than you, it's not enough to accomplish the task of hardening the teeth and preventing a good percentage of tooth decay.

[quoted] ADA: "Does the fluoridation of public water supplies target the group which would benefit the most from its addition, namely infants and young children under the age of 12, and does it have any known benefit for adults? Yes."
Darrel: "They aren't targeted, and they do have teeth (they're in the gums).">>

TIC: "It says right there that they target infants for consumption on fluoride.">>

Good grief, is this what you are reduced to? Quibbling about wording on this site written for consumers? It "targets" everyone who drinks water and has teeth. Everyone drinks water, (and if it has fluoride in it), usually, for most of their life, teeth. What's your point? The target of putting fluoride in the water, is humans.

TIC: "Below you will find a site that i'm sure you will say is full of "junk" science...">>

Good. Then I'll just ignored it. The question of the science has pretty well been settled here. More interesting at this point is why you are so consistently susceptible to and sucked in by quack science as peddled by cranks. (for those who may think I'm being to hard on Tic here, I've posted a few tens of thousands of words responding to his climate change claims and a few other things over the years). Some of it is posted here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6561&hilit=ticon

Let's cut to the chase and review.

I was careful to refer to two very different and specific questions at the beginning of this. (1) The science part, and (2) the moral/political question of making this decisions for society, collectively. Because of your investment in being against #2 due to your hatred and paranoia regarding anything government, you desperately look around for any science you can grasp on to that may support what you want to believe for political/religious reasons (I pretty much consider libertarianism a religion at this point). This is what truthers do, it's what creationists do, it's what all conspiracy people do. And when they can't get or cherry pick the science to support them, they move the goal posts and say "we need more studies" or "it's a cover up" or "you haven't refuted this study over here" and some such nonsense. You should just be honest and straightforward and admit that you hate the notion that the government has made a decision that we will collectively address tooth decay in a public way and stop pretending you actually have any science to support you. You don't.

TIC: "Also you will find a link to a Dr. that is also against fluoridation.">>

Any field is going to have some quacks. We have doctors who don't think HIV causes AIDS (they're wrong). We have a few biologists who don't believe in evolution (they're wrong). We have a few geologists who believe in a young earth (they're wrong). And we are going to have a few Dr.'s and dentists who are against fluoridation of the public water. Unless they can convince a considerable portion of their peers via peer reviewed science, I am not interested in what they have to say. And they have not done this.

TIC: "Fluoride has been prescribed as medicine before to treat certain conditions, therefore it would seem it is a drug.">>

Now we get the semantic angle. If it's an X, then it goes into the X box and should be treated like other X's. If a person is dehydrated and a doctor tells them to drink more water, does that make water a drug? No, I don't think so. These anti-F'ers are just desperate to try anything to get ride of the fluoride and this drug angle is just one trick in their basket.

TIC: "It is placed into the public water supply meaning that it is forced upon everyone.">>

Yes it is. And I think that is fine and dandy. In fact I am more for it than I was before I did this recent reading on it.

TIC: "the California government. You don't think those are some pretty lame arguments?">>

No. But they did address all of your questions and probably a few you hadn't even heard of.

TIC: "EPA has already said that large doses cause skeletal fluorsis.">>

And the EPA says don't take large doses. Simple.

TIC: "So what is it large doses are good or bad for your bones?">>

Bad. Listen to the EPA. Take fluoride, but not in large doses.

TIC: "And more research is or isn't' needed?">>

Not needed. I think one of the sources I gave you referred to 700-800 studies. Anti-F'ers will never be happy because they aren't looking for the truth of the matter, they are looking for an answer that will support what they want to believe, for various reasons. In your case, a general paranoia and dislike of anything involving the government.

***

TIC: "On this subject, i have read a lot of the sources you have provided as should be evident by my rebuttal to some arguments made by the California government.">>

But I mean before you came in here. You had only read the conspiracy stuff right? You specifically avoided the standard mainstream science stuff that I easily stumbled on to by doing a couple quick searches. I say this, because you consistently do this with many subjects. You read the quack stuff, get all in a lather about it, and avoid the mundane stuff that responds to them. You might consider why you do this (it's exceedingly common by the way).

TIC: "Did I just go to some con sites and take that as my opinion, No.">>

I think that's exactly what you did, before I and Michael did the research for you. Why do you find it useful to avoid the standard mainstream science on issues? There is actually a reason why it has risen to the top and your quacky folks are pretending to do science on youtube clips.

TIC: "Calling something conspiracy stuff is just a way to say it is less creditable and often crazy. Its an attack on character.">>

I agree completely.

TIC: "My conclusion is that it seems like there could be problems with water fluoridation and we should research it more and also consider the social impact of forced medication.">>

I think the problems were considered half a century ago, and they don't rise above the benefits.
I think there has been lots of research and those calling for more will never be happy because it isn't going to give them the answer they want.
I don't know what the "social impact" is that you refer to.

***

Tic's on a mission. A mission from God, or perhaps Ayn Rand. This is what happens when you poke a fanatic, the silly comes out. Let's unpack and then move on to some less unpleasant...

Tic: At first I asked questions, based on a few articles i had seen.">>

Right. And you were given answers, which revealed some basic misunderstandings, which you largely ignored. Then you went back to your agenda articles and began the shoveling process. As if we didn't know that the internet is chock full of a anti-fluoride fanatics.

Tic: "By that time you had begun your character attack and refused to look at any science.">>

I know your character and I make no apology for referring to it accurately. The notion that I refuse "to look at any science" just shows you are angry and can't think straight at this point.

Tic: "Below you will find evidence that supports... [something or other]">>

Look. Wingnut. You have a horse in this race. I don't. I am well aware you have learned to cut and paste and be a shovel conduit for the anti-fluoride alert crowd. I've spent four or five hours reviewing standard science on this and I'm not interested in the topic enough to keep holding your hand and spoon feeding it to you. I'm not on a mission to support a fanatical anti-government conspiracy belief. That's you.

Tic: "The second link has 19 sources. Some of them are foreign but does that mean British science...">>

Which reminds me, the review I provided which looked at 77 studies (which you ignored as you went for your shovel), was from Australia. Is Australia in on this conspiracy of the government poisoning it's populace? Just wondering.

Tic: "Below is Ralf Nader thoughts on...">>

I don't care what Ralph Nader has to say, about anything.

Tic: "Am i to believe that others like me, those deep seeded in their need to prove themselves right, cherry picked all this data to make themselves feel better?">>

I don't care what you think, but probably. That's what fanatics do. They go to great lengths to support their emotion based beliefs. I think I've told you before, you'd make a great Jehovah's Witness!

Tic: "maybe, new research should be continued and maybe another reevaluation of the policy.">>

Pass the hat. Have the "fluoride Alert" network pay for it. Oh wait, then no one would believe them because like you, they're on a mission from God. They know the answer, they just need to keep shaking the tree until the right conclusion falls out.

TIC: "Notice that most of the scientific sources they provide are from the 90's and 2000's not 50's, 60's, and 70's like most everything supplied by the EPA.">>

The review I supplied from Australia:

"Department of Public Health, National Health Service Lanarkshire, Hamilton, Lanarkshire, Scotland, UK. nhmrc.publications@nhmrc.gov.au"

which considered 77 studies, only looked at material since 1996. Newer may be better but it hardly matters, you only interested in what fits your agenda.

I don't have an agenda on this issue. I have an opinion, and it's backed up by mainstream science.

TIC: "Fluoridated water is found in places with deep wells and the level of fluoride is often so high that many serious problems develop from drinking it.">>

Right. So they should get proper filters that will at least lower the level to government recommended levels.

TIC: "This fluoridealeart site is heavily sourced.">>

That's nice. I'm bored. You're agenda driven evangelism is predictable and boring.

TIC: "All of the sources you already called junk science before even evaluating them.">>

I didn't call anything "junk science." You used that term. You are the only person to have used that term in this thread. I agreed with your opinion and used it as an excuse to not spend a couple more hours looking at material from people who can only sing one song, the "we hate fluoride" song. Boring. I like lots of kinds of music, but I don't like to hear the same song over and over. Because I'm not a fanatic.

TIC: "However if we look at how much fluoride is in rain and ground water, we can see that the amount of fluoride is minimal,...">>

So?

TIC: 'Some research indicates that the fluoride used to fluoridate water,... could often be contaminated with other known harmful chemicals such as arsenic.">>

More fear mongering. Arsenic also occurs natural in water sources and our levels are carefully measured. Bush tried to raise the level that was allowed, because that's what conservatives like to do it seems. As I remember, he failed.

TIC: You called me a liar...">>

Oh, this is precious. Please cite where I called you "a liar."

TIC: "and said my motives are some deep seeded need to prove my world views.">>

It's all you've ever done. And you have almost no discernment. Examples upon request.

Oh, and an earlier post I missed....

TIC: "It's considered spam to voice concern over current water policy?">>

No, it's spam when you put up at 12 thousand character post rather than a link (and then accuse me of censoring it because you don't know that Facebook doesn't allow posts to be of infinite size).

TIC: "All i tried to get you to admit to is there could be need for further research,">>

Oh, there can always be more research. It's your only hope really isn't? We can't know if 9/11 is an inside job unless we have more investigations, more research. Gotta keep shaking that tree and hope what you want to believe falls out. We can't know if climate change is human caused unless we have more research. I'm so old I remember when papa Bush said we couldn't know if acid rain is real unless we had more research. At that point there were thousands of dead lakes caused by it. Then we made the coal plants put better filters on their smoke stacks and we fixed acid rain.

TIC: "...all you could do is spout the official line.">>

I make no apology for appealing to the mainstream science. If you want to over throw it, you need to bring better science. Maybe you can do that. You haven't. And now I'm really quite bored with the fanaticism and evasion. Which is where ever discussion with you has lead to.

TIC: "If any doctor speak out their quacks, random joes are conspiracy theorist, organizations against it are frauds and researching indicating possible danger is irrelevant or faulty.">>

Close enough.

TIC: "I wasn't arguing semantics, your clearly contradicted yourself, twice.">>

I am usually pretty good on the topic of contradictions, considering I wrote a book about them: http://fayfreethinkers.com/ourbooks/mirrorsample.shtml

You're fiddling with semantics, and you're not very good at it. You're errors are grade school.

TIC: "I was hoping you would actually show me how these studies are irrelevant in the consideration of forced medication on the population, but i guessed i hoped for too much.">>

Yes you did. Spoon feeding time is over. You're evasions have become boring.

TIC: "I might as well stop. You won't look at these sources, your not up for debate,">>

Yes, because as anyone can see from this exchange I'm "not up for debate."

***

T: "I have honed my understanding of the chemistry, politics, and history of water fluoridation by participating in this forum,">>

Good. Then you claim to have learned something. Why are you still living over at the Anti-fluoride network?

T: "you have done nothing but stick with what you had already thought.">>

Because you haven't provided material I have found persuasive. Again, you pretended to come here asking questions, but when you didn't like the answers, you began shoveling all the anti-fluoride stuff you can find. And there's lots of it. You've done this in every exchange on every subject we've had so it quickly becomes tedious, and predictable. Maybe you think you're a rebel?

T: "i showed in earlier post where you contradicted yourself and said there was no site you wouldn't visit.">>

This is why you shouldn't paraphrase when you try to get me on some irrelevant nit. The precise wording becomes important. Just because there is no site I am afraid to look at or consider, doesn't mean I have the time or interest to look at every goddamn link your anti-fluoride peddlers have put up. You have an agenda here. I don't. You're on a mission. I'm not. There is a difference. I have many topics I am interested in. Fluoride isn't in the top twenty.

T: "You implied that any sources i could provide would be junk science when you pointed out the second to last item on the list form the ADA.">>

That the anti-fluoride crowd is brimming with quacks peddling howling falsehoods, is hardly a controversial claim.

T: "I posted some quotes... and you called it cherry picking.">>

Because that's exactly what it was. And had you read them carefully, you would have noticed that even those only barely, and very weakly, supported your thesis. And those were your cherries.

T: "Cherry picking is a form of junk science right?">>

It's a fallacy and a form of selective attention. You pick what confirms your bias and ignore what contradicts it. You have an agenda here. I don't.

T: "...you called my sources junk science without evaluating them.">>

I've not used that term. It's not useful to make things up and put words in my mouth.

T: "You look at science but only science that agrees with the mainstream...">>

There's actually a reason why some science has risen to the top and gets to be majority and mainstream. It's called peer review. When your anti-fluoride folks can convince their science peers that they have more and better information, then your position will be considered mainstream. And that will be a point in it's favor. But you're such a rebel, at that point you'll probably look for something else fringe to crusade for.

Incidentally, you did that same thing when we had an exchange ten times longer than this one, on climate change.

Why do you keep avoiding the only interesting question here, which at this point is why you are so susceptible to fringe quack claims? Does it give you a buzz or something?

ADA Quote: "• Be aware of misinformation on the Internet and other junk science related to water fluoridation."

That's some really good advice there. How could it not be? And it applies to not only this subject, but every other subject I have had discussions with you about.

T: "the ADA which is very unlikely to reverse it position after years of claiming it to be one of their best accomplishments.">>

I think lowering cavities by about 25% is quite an accomplishment.

T: "I just posted MANY links to...">>

I know. But now I'm bored. Terribly.

T: "You implied that i was a liar...">>

So when you said I called you a liar, you were actually, lying. Got it. Funny how that one tends to bite the accuser in the ass. And a further note. When I call someone a liar, which I very *very* rarely do, you'll find I am using it in the strict sense and will only do so when I have good reason to believe they are saying something they know isn't true. I always try to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the person is misinformed and being sloppy. So I don't think you are a liar, but I do know that you are very sloppy in such exchanges (and usually misinformed by reliance on internet cranks).

T: "I answered your question honestly, and you said my answers was dishonest.">>

I never said any answers were dishonest. Will you quit paraphrasing and then attacking strawmen of your imagination? It's not useful. Ever. Respond to what I say.

T: "You didn't say "Oh, ticon is a liar" but you you propose that my answer is false.">>

There is a huge difference between saying something that is false, and saying something you know is false. One is lying, the other is being mistaken. You need to learn this difference, because it's important.

T: "You don't think i know how to go to the CDC page?">>

I don't think you went there before I gave you the link.

[big snip]

T: "How would we get a second round of studies to go agasint the "standard"?>>

A second round of studies? A "second" round? Good grief.

I think I'll go tune some pianos. But first I am going to brush my teeth and get a good dose of fluoride.

***

T: "So i thought i knew what I did before coming to your forum.">>

It's entirely clear what "you did" because you proceeded to share with us the fruits of you labors. You read a bunch of silly stuff on the internet, like you always do, and then posted it here. And it got smacked down, over and over, and you didn't like it. As usual.

You passed along the Fluoride from aluminium bit. Where did you get this? Why you read it on the net! This reveals you didn't make the slightest attempt to debunk things before you came here and asked us to do it for you. *And that's fine.* We don't mind. But don't expect to remain unscathed in the process as you continue to be defensive and shovel crap without thinking about it.

After giving us stuff from the "Global Research" group (conspiracy quack site) and a FOX story that you didn't read carefully because the headline contradicted even the own article (standard FOX procedure), you passed along some other stuff. Let's revisit Michael's response:

***
MICHAEL:

Tic[...] wrote,
> I think you guys are really closed minded for calling
> someone a conspiracy nut for asking questions.

It's not asking questions that gets a person labeled a conspiracy nut. It's espousing assertions of conspiracies and cover-ups or using conspiracy theorist sources that does that.

That said, if you'll read carefully, you'll notice that I didn't call you a conspiracy nut. I simply referred to the common claims of conspiracy nuts about "safe" or "natural" sources of fluoride, and I addressed those claims in addition to your questions. I did so using a reliable source (National Institutes of Health) that shows exactly what happens to these fluorosilicates when they are added to water.

But let's take a look:
You post a FOX News story that gives the impression that the EPA no longer approves of the addition of fluoride to drinking water. But that's not really the change in the EPA's position.
You also post a link to a site that alleges that -- because no research has been done on the fluorosilicates in humans -- we can't know that they're safe as a fluoride source. But my citation clearly explains what happens to the fluorosilicates in water: They break up, producing fluoride. No fluorosilicates are present in the drinking water, so there is no point in seeing what they do to humans. It is an entirely concocted controversy with no relationship to reality.
This is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. And you are posting it.

Yet I still didn't call you a conspiracy nut, so enough of your feigned outrage. And although the moral question applies, and is a good question, do not pretend that that was the intent of your inquiry. Remember, your links question the safety of the fluoride and fluoride source, not the morality of fluoridation. You would do well to stop accusing us of being unfair.

> Question one: Could low level fluoride exposes still
> be harmful to health?

It's possible, but nearly anything is "possible." So the real question is: is it likely? Based on the data available, no. There is no reason to ignore extensive, statistically significant results of scientific study. Unless you're pushing a conspiracy theory, that is.

> Question two: Should we force medicate the population to save their
> teeth, knowing that fluoride is harmful at certain levels and it is
> especially harmful to kids.

You seem to have trouble understanding. Saying that "fluoride is harmful at certain levels" as part of this conversation is wholly dishonest. *Water* is "harmful at certain levels," but you're not questioning whether we should stop water service. Whether fluoride is harmful at 5 ppm isn't relevant to the question of whether providing fluoride at 0.7 ppm is harmful or has moral implications. Stop pretending that it is.

Again: If you want to ask the moral question, then ask the moral question. You can do that without being dishonest and alarmist about the science. You're really trying my patience for not calling you a nut.

***

T: "Oh, that's right I'm mistaken about what I did, you know me better than i know myself.">>

I know what you've posted. I can read. And you clearly didn't do *any* homework before waltzing in here and revealing that you didn't do any homework. And now you've done some but mostly you've gone back to your comfort zone of reading quack agenda stuff from the zealots.

Why do you do this? That's the only interesting question.

It's like you come in here with a kick me sign on your back. We try to be nice but then the dumb reaches saturation and we can't take it any more.

T: "I must of have already had a crazy conspiracy brain and then heard something from some fringe quack, since that is all i listen to.">>

I agree.

T: "Glad to know that you weren't calling me a liar...">>

So you admit I didn't call you a liar? Good. That's a start. Best to be honest.

T: "i must be constantly tricking myself.">>

Absolutely you are. Maybe you'll grow out of it.

T: "Good thing I came here to have you work that out.">>

Hey, getting things wrong is fine and dandy. That's to be expected. But don't pretend you want an opinion, and then when you get it, proceed to pass along a bunch of stuff you don't understand and can't defend. It will be roasted.

T: "You are rather full of yourself.">>

Well maybe when you learn what you are talking about, you'll be full of yourself too. Relevance to the issue? Zero.

T: "Didn't debunk any science,">>

Why don't you try reading this thread again, from top to bottom. You will find that your claims were repeatedly, that is, over and over, debunked.

***

END

Maybe Tic did read it. Then he deleted the thread. Now it's been largely restored.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Cuious(sic) about your position on fluoridation

Post by Savonarola »

Darrel wrote:Now it's been largely restored.
And here are the bits that I still have, which isn't all of my contributions, but it's something:

[Darrel was able to locate one of my original posts that got zapped when cowardly Ticon killed the whole thread, so it has been added immediately below.]

----------
==========
----------

Let's take a look at the research and then do some math:

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/fluorosilicates.pdf

----------

In water, the compound [Na2SiF6] readily dissociates to sodium ions and hexafluorosilicate ions. At the pH of drinking water (6.5-8.5) and at the concentration usually used for fluoridation (1 mg fluoride/L), essentially 100% of sodium hexafluorosilicate dissociates to fluoride ions and hydrated silica (Crosby, 1969; Urbansky and Schock, 2000)...

Na2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O --> 4 HF(aq) + 2 NaF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq)

In water, fluorosilicic acid readily hydrolyzes to hydrofluoric acid and various forms of amorphous and hydrated silica. At the concentration usually used for water fluoridation, 99% hydrolysis occurs and the pH drops to 4.2. As pH increases, hydrolysis increases. At the pH of drinking water, the degree of hydrolysis is "essentially 100%" (Crosby, 1969; Urbansky and Schock, 2000).

H2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O --> 6 HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq)

----------

MAT
Now, HF is a nasty substance in bulk, but at this concentration it does exactly what we want it to do: make fluoride ions. The acid dissociation constant (Ka) of HF is 6.6E-4. Assuming 1 ppm HF (which is a bit *over* the new 0.7 mg/L guideline): Ka = 6.6E-4 = = [H+][F-]/[HF] = x^2/(0.00005-x) Solving for x, we get 4.67E-5 moles/liter for a fluoride ion concentration; divide by the original molar concentration of a 1 ppm solution, and we see that the HF is 93 % dissociated. That is, 93% of the HF isn't HF anymore, it's H+ and F- (fluoride). Had I used 0.7 ppm in the math instead of 1 ppm, that percentage would be higher, meaning that you have even less to worry about. For the record, if someone tried to add about 1 ppm F- in the form of NaF, or some other form that conspiracy nuts consider "safe" or "natural," the reverse reaction would take place: the fluoride would react with water to form just a little bit of HF. In terms of fluoride ion concentration or concentration of fluorine-containing substances, there is very little difference. (***Edited to add: When I did the math for the conditions of 0.7 ppm and a pH of 7, which is MORE like the actual water conditions, the math comes out to 99.98% dissociation. Let nobody pretend that I'm skewing numbers by selecting criteria "favorable" for my position.) (This is what Adam Black meant: It matters not what the source is; it matters only what is present in the water now.)"

----------
==========
----------

Ticon Storay wrote,
> 2 out of 5 developed permanent tooth damage
That was nearly entirely only cosmetic and not a health issue.

> At the previous levels we were protecting the teeth of 60% of the
> population by damaging the teeth of the other 40%.
Plainly wrong. Even those people who ended up with fluorosis had their teeth protected.

> [HuffPo link]
As you suggested, HuffPo's science section isn't worthy enough to be my toilet paper. Let's look at the six big claims in this article:
1. Fluoride is the only drug that is forced as mass medication of the population with no control of dosing.
Even if this were true, it says nothing about the safety of fluoride. Moreover, there *is* control of dosing: There is no feasible way for the layperson to get a fluoride dosage of over 0.7 ppm.
2. The two most common types of fluoride in your drinking water are ... waste products...
We've already been over this: It is absolutely, 100% irrelevant because NONE of those substances make it into the body. The fact that this "doctor" is using this as an argument speaks more to how unreliable a source he is than it speaks to anything else.
3. [numerous] studies link fluoride to brain damage.
I'll address this below while addressing your other links.
4. 50% of ingested fluoride is deposited in the bones of children...
Okay, but stating this doesn't show that it is a problem. Scientists demand data (but data that are applicable). See also below.
5. 41% of American children have dental fluorosis...
which I've already told you is almost entirely a cosmetic issue.
6. 99% of all fluoride added to water goes down the drain and into the environment.
If you're going to use scare tactics, you need to be able to back them up. What does the fluoride do the the environment?

> But i don't have time to spend all day finding the sources you guys
> think are good.
Then you're doing it wrong. HuffPo isn't a good source, but there are reasons that HuffPo science articles aren't good sources. Citing actual journal articles, like in your pubmed link, is much better. (Your Reuters link just refers to the same article.)

But here's the problem with that meta-analysis: Nowhere in the abstract does it say what levels of fluoride "exposure" are being studied. I can't access the full article to see the numbers, but I did find one of the papers that the meta-analysis uses, and it is comparing lower levels of fluoride exposure (under 1.1 ppm) to levels around 8.9 ppm. Again, this is not a valid test of whether 1.2 or 0.7 ppm "exposure" has the same effect on IQ. (Furthermore, if IQ tests in China are anywhere near as flawed as IQ tests in here the U.S., then a 0.45 point difference isn't really a difference.) Even the conclusion of the paper stops short of declaring that there's a dangerous relationship, and instead suggests that more pointed studies be conducted.
Thus, why are you not showing us studies comparing the effect of 0 ppm fluoride with the effect of 0.7 or 1.2 ppm fluoride? I'd be totally in favor of seeing such data, but nobody seems willing to provide it. Instead, we see the ridiculous comparisons that don't address the real question at all. It's saying essentially the same thing as, "Because drinking seven liters of Coca-Cola every day can kill you, drinking Coca-Cola in modest amounts must be dangerous and should be stopped."

----------
==========
----------

It's like talking to a wall. You have acknowledged ZERO of the points from my previous post and sidestepped the main two: You need reliable sources and you need sources that actually address the question at hand.

Ticon Storay wrote,
> Damage to the enamel causes sensitive teeth.
Provide studies that show that fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm cause damage to the enamel that causes sensitive teeth. (And, because of the nature of this claim, show that any tooth sensitivity suffered by people whose teeth are damaged by fluoridated water is worse than the effect on the teeth of not having fluoridated water.)

> The EPA has already said that they found excessive amount of
> fluoride cause brittle bones.
Provide studies that show that fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm cause brittle bones.

> is this not true?
Can you not read?

> Fluoride can be obtain by buying toothpaste.
And calcium can be obtained by buying milk, and antacids, and calcium supplements -- OMG WITHOUT CONTROL OF DOSING OMG OMG. And people can get so much calcium that they get very painful kidney stones. Why aren't you lobbying for regulation of calcium?

> For many people, they would rather be safe than sorry and they do
> not prefer to ingest fluoride.
Is it National Baseless Assertion Day? Because I can play, too! Watch: "For many people, they would rather be safe than sorry and they'd rather have fluoride in the water to protect their teeth."

> Shouldn't we be absolutely sure before we experiment with adding
> toxic chemicals to our water.
In science, there is no such thing as "absolutely sure," so you have an unattainable requirement. Once again, you have yet to provide studies that show that fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm qualify as "toxic" or causes levels of damage that are unacceptable.

Why can't you provide the science, Ticon? Why can't you supply reliable sources without fearmongering? Why can't you address my points?
Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Cuious(sic) about your position on fluoridation

Post by Joeknows »

I've thought about making this a Moral Question of the Day at a freethinker meeting because it really is a good question and one without a clear answer.
I like that you would take on this question, and at least acknowledge that the second part of it is clearly wrong, regardless of the first. I didn't even realize this group dealt with morality. But the answer to this question comes from finding the most whole and completely pure definition of what "help" is. Help is an offer, which must be accepted before it can be given. If it is not accepted willingly, then you are actually helping your self instead of them. This is why they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You gotta go beyond intention, to see the heart of the matter.

So the question (within legal parameters) would be whether or not there was a "monopoly" of water produced that is fluoridated; and whether there was an equal access to non-fluoridated water by those that thought fluoride was unsafe. I think that there are possibly some legal issues that could be defended, but definitely some moral ones.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Cuious(sic) about your position on fluoridation

Post by David Franks »

Savonarola wrote:Ticon Storay wrote,
> 2 out of 5 developed permanent tooth damage....
> Damage to the enamel causes sensitive teeth....
Anecdote: After using fluoridated water my whole life, I moved to Wichita, Kansas and lived there for fifteen years. Wichita does not have fluoridated water. The entire time I lived there, I had to have twice-yearly treatments-- application of a substance including fluoride-- to reduce tooth sensitivity. Since I returned to Fayetteville and resumed my use of fluoridated tap water, I have not needed treatments for tooth sensitivity. Pretty amazing. Could it be that I am one of Rappaccini's children?
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
Post Reply