While sitting around the Thanksgiving table, the most loathsome activity that always comes up is the ritual "Thanksgiving Prayer" always lead by the most devout believer of the clan. I bite my tongue, usually stare straight forward with eyes wide open, taking note of who takes the ritual seriously and speculate which ones are the secret atheists going along with the ride for diplomacy's sake. I'm fine with sitting silently through the ritual as long as I don't have to bow my head, clasp my hands, and/or close my eyes. Since I have the capability to separate reality from fantasy play-land, I feel most offended for the children that have no choice and a limited ability to understand the world. Not only can they not refuse to participate, their squishy, sponge-like brains are being primed for a life of unquestioning servitude. Religion forced upon children is child abuse, a reality which has no proof for existing is being hoisted upon their minds. The guilt and shame of sexuality, the inferiority of women, all of the near-universal bigotry and falsehood of religion is shamelessly taught as "the virtue of faith".
Rallying against dogmatism, rather than simply just religion, is an important distinction that I believe more atheists should be clear about. As atheists, we post our anti-religious memes, make anti-religious jokes, and generally poke fun of religion. All well and good, I say. Lets just keep in mind the larger war while we do so, and perhaps use some of our energies to include anti-dogmatism in our argumentation. Whether its political dogmatism, religious dogmatism, or any fanatic dogmatism, it all deserves our derision.
Alex Jones is every skeptic's worst nightmare. His ideology centers around the monolithic evil conspiracy theory that an agency (called "them") control the world around us with an iron clad fist. I'm surprised Chomsky even went on his show. The debate starts out with some agreement happening between the two on how power is aggregated away from the public sphere into elite control. Chomsky disagrees with Jone's assertion that the public is largely unaware of this. The program breaks into absolutely ridiculous commercials for chemical filters for your shower and so forth. At 22:50, Chomsky tells Jones that the counter to government propaganda is to think critically and not take what people say at face value. Jones calls Chomsky a "New World Order shill" at 35:15, because Chomsky disagreed with Jones over gun death statistics. My loathing for Jones again rivals that of a Fox News pundit.
Greydon Square is an atheist rapper from Compton, CA. His lyrics generally revolve around philosophical issues and science. He studied physics and computer science after serving in the Iraq War and runs his own organization called Grand Unified Theory which educates people about science, secular values, and rational thinking. His lyrics are amazing and his beats are straight old style hip-hop, highly recommended listening.
Type II: The Mandelbrot Set
Galaxy Rise
4th
Snowflakes and Flowsnakes
Peace Peace
Flower Girl
2013 Atheist Dreadnought (Lady Assassin, Syqnys, Greydon Square, Tombstone da Deadman, Johnny Hoax, Gripp, & T
The imitable Christopher Hitchens talks about his then new book god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. He lays out his foundational points which are discussed further in his book during the first half and does an audience Q&A with the second half, during which many oft repeated (but Stalin was an atheist!) arguments are levied against his hypothesis. Hitchens addresses them with his usual clear logic and dramatic charisma. I'm still pained by never being able to see him in person before he died. I just completed reading The Origin of Species and will be starting god is Not Great hopefully tomorrow.
"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." - 2002 Memo for GOP Canidates
The contention is that since the science isn't settled there's no need to take action. Much as the tobacco companies argued that we don't need warning labels on cigarettes because our scientists say that smoking is harmless. Now the idea of questioning the science is often done through presenting a slate of scientists that support your point of view and certainly the creationists have done this for decades... At any event, even 30,000 scientists is a small fraction of the total number of people receiving degrees in science since approximately the 1970s which would be the cohort that would be being sampled, shall we say. One calculation had it as 3/10ths of 1 percent so the idea that there is this huge ground swell of scientists opposing global warming is, to say the least, overstated.
An internet buddy of mine (who I know personally but wished to remain anonymous for fear of internet backlash) recorded this robotic phone poll last night. DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO HERE. Here is a transcript of the message:
[If you would vote] no or undecided. If you would vote yes press one.
Did you know the fluoridation chemical the water bureau would add to our water is called fluorosilicic acid and is not a naturally occurring fluoride mineral or even the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste? Instead, fluorosilicic acid is an industrial by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Press one if you are aware of this. Press two if you were not aware of this.
Did you know that following a major National Academy of Sciences report in 2006 the federal government called for a reduction of fluoridation concentrations by over 40% because of concerns people were getting too much fluoride?
Press one if you knew this. Press two if you did not know this.
Did you know that according to recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading researchers that even low fluoride levels can damage the brain, thyroid, and bones?
Press one if you were aware of these risks. Press two if you were not aware of these risks.
In light of these facts, has your opinion changed on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? If the election were held today, how would you describe your position on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? Voting yes, meaning to vote yes, voting no, meaning to vote no, or undecided.
If you would vote yes press one.
Thank you for your participation. This poll was paid for by Clean Water Portland PAC.
This is a very obvious case of push polling. It is an underhanded telemarketing technique where a political campaign, under the guise of conducting a poll, conveys innuendo and negative information about a particular stance. Very often there is no attempt at analyzing or interpreting the polling data and their sole purpose is to convey the negative information. Push polling is a form of negative campaigning (in the same category with smear tactics, fear mongering, and voter suppression) and is condemned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) [1].
As for the information contained in the push poll, its loaded with scientific falsehoods and manipulating innuendo. They continually repeat "fluoride CHEMICAL" in an attempt to play on people's misguided and unscientific fear of the word "chemical". Chemicals are all around us, sugar is one and water is another, therefore it is irrational to fear them or to believe that the word "chemical" has any sort of negative connotation. Some continued internet reading on the subject here, here, and here.
The fact that fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of an industrial process does not make it inherently unsafe. A by-product is a secondary product derived from a manufacturing
process or chemical reaction. It is not the primary product or service
being produced. Hexafluorosilicic acid, once put into water, converts completely into fluoride ions (F-), hydrogen ions (H+), and sand[2]. It is scientifically impossible to separate naturally occurring fluoride ions from fluoride ions added artificially in this manner.
Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit
assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the
committee’s charge. (p. 2)
The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from
exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of
exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of
fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental
fluorosis. It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human
effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely
large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride. The average rat
weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7
kg. Toxicity is weight dependent. That's 10 times the recommended
human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
It references the Chinese and Iranian studies linking lower IQ
scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of their poor quality.
It even states: Without detailed information about the testing
conditions and the tests
themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the
studies. (p. 208)
Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is
nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/L. (p. 346)
This study says nothing about the safety or efficacy of
community water fluoridation (at .7 ppm), it is a study measuring the
toxicology of high doses of fluoride. It cannot be used to back
negative arguments regarding the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation because, I
reiterate, there is no evidence within the study that fluoride at the recommended .7 ppm level has any negative health effects whatsoever and the study explicitly states that it was not evaluating fluoride's efficacy in preventing dental caries.
Clean Water Portland is leading a campaign of false facts, negative campaigning, and fear mongering. While you may or may not be for water fluoridation, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is the science is overwhelmingly in favor of water fluoridation, it is safe and effective. Clean Water Portland knows this and is resorting to improper campaign tactics in order to counter this damning fact. Vote yes on Measure 26-151, vote no on pseudoscience and fear.
In this battle of intellects, we have Mike Plunkett, DDS, MPH the Dental Director of CareOregon Community Health, and Assistant
Professor at OHSU School of Dentistry.CareOregon Incorporated isOregon's
largest fully capitated Medicaid health plan, and is responsible for
delivering the comprehensive health care benefits of over 160,000
Oregonians on the Oregon Health Plan.In his role at CareOregon Community
Health, Dr. Plunkett provides clinical leadership for the integration
of comprehensive dental services into its existing four site primary
care clinic network [1]. We've also got Alejandro Queral, MS, JD a program officer for the NW Health Foundation. Alejandro has a law degree from George Washington University Law School,
an MS in Biological Sciences from Northern Illinois University and a BA
in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia [2]. Looks like Healthy Kids Health Portland (Portland's pro-fluoride grassroots organization) has some serious intellectual clout to bring to the table. Representing Clean Water Portland (the anti-fluoride grassroots organization) we've got Kellie Barnes a physical therapist(?) and Rick North the former CEO of the American Oregon Cancer Society, who also explicitly states he's not a doctor or scientist. I have to say CWP is a little out gunned here, especially since throughout the debate their only peer-reviewed, quality, scientific paper (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards) they pull out in defense of their arguments has many enlightening statements in it (some of these are from my earlier fluoride mythology blog post):
Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit
assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the
committee’s charge. (p. 2)
The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from
exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of
exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of
fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental
fluorosis. It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human
effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely
large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride. The average rat
weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7
kg. Toxicity is weight dependent. That's 10 times the recommended
human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
It references the already mentioned above study linking lower IQ
scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of its poor quality.
It even states: Without detailed information about the testing
conditions and the tests
themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the
studies. (p. 208)
Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is
nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/L. (p. 346)
This study says nothing about the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation (at .7 ppm), it is a study measuring the toxicology of high doses of fluoride. It cannot be used to back arguments regarding the safety of community water fluoridation because, I reiterate, there is no evidence within the study that fluoride at the recommended .7 ppm level has any negative health effects whatsoever.
INVISIBLE ARTERIES was just taken down today by Blogger, with the ominous tagline: "Blog has been removed." The blog police have arrived and crashed the party. It started me on a philosophical debate in my head. As an avid music fan (my life and work are dedicated to it), I've shared and downloaded thousands upon thousands of bands/artists. Sharing it is a window into your subconscious tastes, churning desires, and artistic sensibilities. Having a music blog is like having hundred of mixtapes stashed in your backpack to hand out to strangers on the street, but it is much more powerful then that outdated analogy. It's also easy to forget that there are artists slaving away, putting their hearts and souls into their music while working their minimum wage subsistence job. You could argue that without internet downloading, there would be more people buying music, therefore all artists would be lifted out of their relative monetary squalor. But, I'm not so sure. The bands just starting out would have to work much harder to get noticed and it would change the underground music economy, taking the power away from the consumers and placing it more firmly in the hands of labels and industry. For me, downloading music has been the gateway into hundreds of my favorite bands. When I like a band, I buy their records (I have a lot of LPs), I buy their t-shirts, I pay to see them live (unless I'm doing sound for them). In all but the first instance (unless the band is very DIY which so many of my favorite bands are), my money is almost entirely being contributed in direct support of the band. There is an underground music economy, bands and fans all feeding into a closed loop system, with very little corporate involvement and interference. I argue very strongly in favor of free music sharing because DIY and underground bands would have a much harder time disseminating their music and gaining fans. Indeed, many of my favorite artists would have remained anonymous to me, if Napster, Kazaa, torrents, or blogs had never existed. Free internet sharing has enriched my life and I feel like it enriches underground culture in general. Freedom of information-spread digitally throughout the world-has ushered in a new revolution of human consciousness and music downloading is inexorably linked to that revolution. Viva musica, viva libertad!
This roundtable debate on fluoridating Wichita's municipal water supply aired on KPTS. It included Wichitans for Healthy Teeth members Pamela Amar, a lawyer, and dentist Dr Rob Daken against Dr. Steven L’Hommedieu of Advanced Alternatives for Health and Dr. Charles Hinshaw, the director of the Bio-Center Laboratory at the Riordan Clinic.
After the opening speeches, the moderator states "So many issues are reduced to 'Who do you believe?' and whether there are any unstated motives that might influence a position or another. What part does that play in this discussion?" The lawyer immediately responds, in true lawyer fashion, with "I don't think it plays a part as far as the leading studies showing what [the truth is]." I agree. But, I find it enlightening to examine people's professions and expertise to really understand why they might have certain biases against a particular position. Dr. Steven L'Hommedieu's Advanced Alternative for Health is exactly what it sounds like. It's an "alternative" medicine center. Here is a list of their services from their website:
Kinesiology
Natural Medicine
Nutrition
Chiropractic
Food and Environmental Sensitivity
Assessment
Heavy Metal and Chemical Detoxification
Acupuncture
Low Level Cold Laser Therapy
Microcurrent Therapy
Laboratory Testing and Imaging
Possessing a comprehensive knowledge
of kinesiology, natural medicine, nutrition, Chinese medicine and
chiropractic, he is able to logically integrate alternative and
science-based evaluations and procedures with cutting-edge accuracy [1].
Now, you can say that these services are "science-based" all day, but the fact of the matter is that most of these services contain large pseudoscience doses, well above the recommended level. As Richard Dawkins says, "There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There's medicine that works and medicine that doesn't."
Moving on, Dr. Charles Hinshaw works for the Bio-Center Laboratory at the Riordan Clinic. The Riordan Clinic is a natural health complex in Wichita that provides a holistic approach to medicine. They have testing, supplements, event-space rentals, lectures.
The Bio-Center Lab at the Riordan Clinic was established in 1975 and has
dedicated itself to providing accurate clinical analysis focusing on
nutritional medicine. Our specialties include testing for pyrroles,
histamine, spermidine, spermine, cytotoxic food sensitivities,
parasitology, analysis of red blood cell fatty acids and minerals, along
with many vitamins [2].
Sounds scientific enough, until you investigate an article written by Dr. Charles Hinshaw which is posted on the site. Entitled Flu Shots? Just the Facts, You Decide supposes that there is a real debate between scientists about whether flu vaccines are safe (there isn't). And he suggests getting the real "facts" about flu shots from the dreaded pseudoscience/alternative medicine guru http://www.mercola.com. I plan on writing a full debunking article on Dr. Mercola in the future (because he is often sourced by quack doctors) and will post a link here once its posted.
Neither of these men are dentists and both are steeped in pseudoscientific thinking. While this does not invalidate their arguments, its important to know as much information as possible to consider whether personal biases may influence their conclusions.
See also my fluoride mythologyblog post, for specific refutations of studies presented against fluoridation.
It frequently strikes me as particularly interesting that many left-wing people embrace various anti-science stances. This was shown to me time and time again while I was involved with the Occupy Portland movement, which was largely a left wing endeavor. I volunteered on the education committee and spent many days running/maintaining the Occupy library. Conversations with random Occupiers often led to anti-vaccination, government conspiracies (a lot of 9/11 truthers), anti-GMOs, and once or twice anti-fluoridation. There was one instance where I was "accosted" by a presumably right-wing individual who attempted to convince me that climate change is a lie/not caused by humans, as if that particular stance would make me abandon all left-wing ideologies if I accepted it as true. Since becoming a skeptic, generally I've become much more critical of embracing any ideological stances which may interfere with scientific bias. People are so quick to label themselves as anarchist, socialist, communist, liberal, conservative, or any other general political label without considering the generally accepted scientific biases that come coupled with any particular political ideological group. While I would generally describe myself as a radical, its hard to just blindly label myself as such from now on without tacking on some ancillary qualifiers, my new self-label being a pro-science radical. I would also encourage those on the side of science to start considering appending your own political views as such, lest you become additionally burdened with those commonly accepted anti-science stances of your own political label.
While having an online discussion with an anti-fluoridation friend of mine, she offered up this video to vindicate her position. It includes interviews with 15 fluoridation authorities (doctors, dentists, and other professionals) essentially calling for the elimination of water fluoridation. The video was produced by FluorideAlert.org, also called The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), according to their mission statement:
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) seeks to broaden awareness about the
toxicity of fluoride compounds among citizens, scientists, and
policymakers alike. FAN not only provides comprehensive and up-to-date
information, but remains vigilant in monitoring government agency
actions that impact the public's exposure to fluoride. [1]
They seek to "broaden awareness about the toxicity of fluoride among... scientists." Part of the scientific method is to attempt to remove inherent biases when conducting experiments and analyzing data. With the intention of influencing scientists to insert biases such as, "fluoride is toxic"they are invalidating any scientific research which they fund or are involved with. They "remain vigilant in monitoring government agency actions" a statement which panders to the conspiratorial mode of thinking.
Water fluoridation has been a rather hot button issue lately here in Portland. The city's drinking water already contains naturally occurring fluoride, but not enough to be considered effective at fighting cavities. Portland is also the last remaining metropolitan area in the US to have unfluoridated water. Late last year the City Council approved adding fluoride to the city's drinking water, effective March 2014, without calling for a citywide ordinance vote [2]. Opponents quickly rallied and gathered over 30,000 signatures to force a referendum and put the issue to a citywide vote in May 2013 [3]. In this essay, I want to examine the facts behind fluoridation. I will explore the claims made in this video by dissecting them using empirical evidence.
The introduction of the video begins with old newsreel footage consisting of various proclamations about fluoridation's health benefits. Quickly, the black and white footage switches to a talking head, "We're not dealing with a benign substance." "There's much too much risk and far too much benefit." proclaims another. This continues with switching between the positive newsreel footage on fluoridation and back to short quips from "the experts". "The dental community has no idea of the toxicology of fluoride." says a man with a mustache wearing scrubs. Well, your average dentist may or may not be aware of the toxicology of fluoride, but there have been several studies to determine the negative health effects of fluoride. The only clear and substantiated detrimental effect of fluoride at the commonly recommended dosage is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth (the most vulnerable period of exposure being between one and four years old with the risk ending around age eight), being mostly mild with minor aesthetic effects [4]. Every substance can be toxic at certain levels, a lethal dose of fluoride for most people is between 5 to 10 grams and can cause gastrointestinal distress at about a tenth of that dose. Chlorine, another commonly added chemical to drinking water, is lethal after 30 minutes 430 ppm (parts per million) when in gaseous form [5]. The current recommended amount of fluoride in water is 0.7 to 1 ppm [6]. When it comes to the actual causes of dental fluorosis, it is estimated that fluoridated water, directly or indirectly, accounts for around 40% of cases with around 60% being caused by other sources (namely toothpaste)[7].
The introduction continues with various blanket statements being issued. One female expert, a Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, states, "Fluoride is a neurotoxin." Directly after a computer generated graphic of a brain rotates around. The graphic is obviously provided to lend some sort of credence to the claim being made. A metadata analysis systematically reviewing water fluoridation compiled 32 studies which examined possible health risks such as Down's syndrome, mortality, senile dementia, goitre, and IQ. The quality of these studies were low (bias, lack of controls, and so forth). None of the studies had a prospective follow up or incorporated any form
of blinding. While 22 studies mentioned potential confounding factors,
only six used an analysis that controlled for them. Only 3 of the 32 studies found any significant effects (one found increased incidents of Alzheimer's, one found decreased incidents of impaired mental functioning [lower mental retardation rates], the third study found that the combination of low iodine and high fluoride
concentrations [probably well above the recommended fluoridation level] was associated with goitre and learning difficulties) and all can be discounted because of their poor quality [8]. There are no quality studies which supports the notion that "Fluoride is a neurotoxin." Fluoride is naturally occurring in water, food and is commonly used in toothpastes and other dental hygiene products. The idea that fluoride is a neurotoxin is ludicrous. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that fluoridated water has an overall positive effect on health [9].
The title to the next section of the video is "Fluoridation & Medical Ethics" and begins with a litany of experts essentially saying "Fluoride is a medicine/drug which is being introduced into the water supply to treat dental caries, unlike chlorine which is specifically introduced to treat/cleanse the water, not to treat the consumer of the water. It violates medical ethics because it is not specifically tailored to the individual." This is definitely a part of the video where if moves into an ethical grey area. As far as medical ethics are concerned, what they say in the video is true, fluoridation is not specifically tailored to the individual. You have to weigh the positive effects with the negative effects and try to arrive at a conclusion which benefits the most people. But, when you remove the conspiratorial thinking and examine the scientific consensus that says, "Water fluoridation is safe, reduces dental cavities, is inexpensive, and easy to implement." [11] the ethical question becomes less and less, "They're introducing a harmful chemical into our water supply." and more "Why are we not introducing water fluoridation?" Because a group of individuals, counter to scientific evidence, believe that it is harmful? Ethically, it seems to me that in most circumstances not introducing fluoridated water is more unethical than introducing it, given its proven effectiveness and lack of harm. It closes the gap between the prevalence of dental caries between rich and poor children. Less and less people here in Portland have access to proper health and dental care. Go and ask your dentist what they think of water fluoridation and try to shed your own biases and conclusions. Ethical questions are difficult, should be discussed, and should be informed by good science and reasoning. And by all means, I urge you to examine the evidence and see through the conspiratorial/bias ridden haze that surrounds this issue and come to your own conclusion as to whether water fluoridation is ethical or not.
The next section is entitled "Do We Need Fluoride?". The answer is unequivocally no. Our bodies do not need to imbibe or process fluoride in order to survive. The fact that the body doesn't need fluoride does not make water fluoridation superfluous. We do not need to imbibe chlorine, but it has obvious positive health effects when added to our drinking water. Chlorine is presently an important chemical for water purification (such as water treatment plants), in disinfectants, and in bleach. Chlorine in water is more than three times as effective as a disinfectant against Escherichia coli than an equivalent concentration of bromine, and is more than six times more effective than an equivalent concentration of iodine [10]. Once again, the scientific consensus is "water fluoridation is safe, reduces dental cavities, is inexpensive, and easy to implement." [11]. The section ends with Earl Baldwin of the British House of Lords stating "... it is not in the category of a vitamin and apart from everything it's miles more toxic than any vitamin." As stated above, fluoride at recommended fluoridation levels is not toxic. Any substance is toxic at certain levels. Niacin (Vitamin B3) produces side effects like gastrointestinal complaints, such as dyspepsia (indigestion), nausea and liver toxicity fulminant hepatic failure, have also been reported. These can manifest at dosages of 1.5 - 6 g per day [12]. Vitamin B3 is one of the 40 to 80 essential human nutrients.
Next up is "Does Fluoride Need to Be Swallowed?" and we are subjected to the drum beat of experts "The effects of fluoride are topical and it does not need to be swallowed." One expert boldly illustrates the notion "If you want to apply suntan lotion to avoid sunburn, you don't swallow the suntan lotion." While the analogy is entertaining, the effectiveness of water fluoridation is proven. Initial studies of community water fluoridation demonstrated that reductions
in childhood dental caries attributable to fluoridation were approximately 50%-60%
(94-97). More recent estimates are lower- 18%-40% (98-99) [9] the lowering of the figures is speculated to be related to the increase of fluoridated toothpaste and other fluoridated products.
"Do Most Countries Fluoridate Water?" The answer really has no bearing whatsoever on the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation. I'll report the answer dutifully however; It is a logical fallacy to think that because any particular country fluoridates their water, does not fluoridate it's water, or has rejected water fluoridation outright that therefore water fluoridation is safe or unsafe. Countries that have over half of their water fluoridated include the US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, most of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Chile. Most European countries have rejected water fluoridation and the list includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland [13].
"Is There Less Tooth Decay In Fluoridated Countries?" Lower rates of tooth decay are uncorrelated with water fluoridation rates but the answer is much more complicated than that. Africa has low rates of dental carries, but Africans typically consume less refined sugars in their diet [14], have poor access to health care, and also have large areas where fluoride occurs naturally in groundwater at high levels [18]. India also has large areas of the country where natural groundwater fluoride levels are higher than recommended. Some European countries that have banned fluoridated water instead add it to their salt and its effectiveness is measured to be on par with water fluoridation [24]. Many European countries have universal health care. France rejects water fluoridation, is rated low in the prevalence of dental caries [15], and listed in the WHO's 2000 ranking of health care systems as number one in the world [16]. Italy too, rejects water fluoridation, is rated low in the prevalence of dental caries, and ranked as the number two health care system in the world. 66% of residents in the US receive fluoridated water [17], our health care system is ranked 38th (behind Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, and Morocco) with the highest rank of expenditure per capita in the world, we consume copious amounts of refined sugars in our diets, and yet we still have a low rating for prevalence of dental caries. Research shows that drinking optimally fluoridated water is one of the
safest and most cost-effective public health measures for preventing,
controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay [19].
"How Much Fluoride are We Ingesting?" Fluoride occurs naturally in groundwater at normal levels between 0.01 ppm and 0.3 ppm. Food contains fluoride at differing variables. This handy chart shows the levels of fluoride in commonly eaten foods [20]. A study by the Journal of Public Health Dentistry contradicts the idea that it is even possible to roughly calculate and optimize your fluoride intake.
With widespread water fluoridation and countless fluoride-containing
products available, quantifying the intakes of fluoride is much more
complex than it was several decades ago. In fact, obtaining data from
the Iowa Fluoride Study necessary for estimates of total fluoride intake
has been extremely complex. For example, fluoride concentrations varied
considerably within the same product category depending on site of
manufacture and distribution pattern, and many children utilized
multiple sources of water, often varying in fluoride concentration [21].
While this may sound troubling, the same study also called into question the idea that there is even an "optimal" level of dental fluorosis to avoid.
It should be emphasized that while almost all of the fluorosis cases in
the present study were mild, the level of esthetic concern among
individual cases likely also varied considerably so that, as
demonstrated in a previous study,
an “optimal” fluoride level to avoid fluorosis may differ depending on
the threshold used to define fluorosis. This is important because as
reported in a recent article,
mild fluorosis was associated with higher quality-of-life measures,
which suggests that avoiding all fluorosis may not be warranted [21].
"Are Kids Being Overdosed?" This section once again highlights the video's intention of omitting evidence which runs counter to their claim.They even have the audacity to do it directly on-screen. A graphic displays a 2005 press release from the CDC [22] and highlights only the following sentence: one-third of children and adolescents 6 to 19 years had enamel
fluorosis of their teeth. The full press release statement shown, on-screen mind you, is:
About one-third of children and adolescents 6 to 19 years had enamel
fluorosis of their teeth, although most was very mild. Enamel fluorosis
happens when the teeth absorb too much fluoride as they develop beneath the
gums. In its mildest form, fluorosis shows up as white spots on the teeth.
Moderate to severe fluorosis, where teeth are discolored and sometimes
pitted, was found in less than 4 percent of children and adolescents.
We are then bombarded by pictures of severe dental fluorosis, with no statement that only 4 percent of children and adolescents have moderate to severe fluorosis. The study which prompted the press release also reports:
The milder forms of enamel
fluorosis typically are not noticeable; however, more severe levels
might be objectionable for cosmetic reasons. Historically, a low
prevalence of the milder forms of fluorosis has been accepted as a
reasonable and minor consequence balanced against the substantial
protection afforded by dental caries from the use of fluoridated
drinking water and foods, beverages, and oral care products that contain
fluoride [23].
The video continues and attempts to make some sort of tenuous connection between dental fluorosis and harm to other bodily systems and areas. "To do that, impacting the enamel cells in the teeth, means that it can also impact cells elsewhere in the body." states the same "enlightened" expert who told us that fluoride is a nuerotoxin. "What's happening in the teeth is very likely happening in the bone as well.", says another expert. According to a systematic review by the Australian National Health and Research Council of 20 potentially relevant studies concluded that water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries, and possibly at somewhat higher naturally occurring levels, appears to have little effect on fracture risk - either protective or deleterious[4]. Of course, there are dubious studies which hint at countering this conclusion but they are all of poor quality and can be dismissed. The video goes on, spiraling further outward, attacking the American Dental Association and calling into question the basic efficacy of the field of dentistry.
The video then refers to a report entitled "Fluoride In Drinking Water" by the National Academy of Sciences [25] which is hailed to be "one of the best reports to find out what Fluoride is doing to the rest of the body." The study makes plenty of key points, all of which are not discussed in the video.
Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit
assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the
committee’s charge. (p. 2)
The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from
exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of
exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental fluorosis. It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride. The average rat weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7 kg. Toxicity is weight dependent. That's 10 times the recommended human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
It references the already mentioned above study linking lower IQ scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of its poor quality. It even states: Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests
themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the
studies. (p. 208)
The producers of the video either ignored the non-supportive contents of the study, totally misunderstood what the term "suggestive evidence" means and proper scientific method, or deliberately cited the study to lend authoritative support to the medical claims being made in the video and expected the audience not to read or properly investigate the study in question. The first two are mistakes out of ignorance while the third imparts willful misfeasance, although the first two are more probable considering the callous disregard of scientific thinking shown thus far in this video.
"Should Infants Drink Fluoridated Water?" There are several studies which show that mother's breast milk is healthier for infants than reconstituted baby formula [26]. An expert in the video states "I think the ADA's recent statement on warning against adding fluoridated water to baby formula is a watershed decision." While searching for the actual ADA press release which contained this statement, I found numerous false leads and even the Boston local news website which is flashed in the video which contained no links to the actual press release. The following is from the ADA Fluoride and Infant Formula FAQ:
If fluorosis occurs when teeth are developing, is it okay to use fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula?
Yes, it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant
formula. If your baby is primarily fed infant formula, using fluoridated
water might increase the chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel
fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your
child’s teeth. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to talk to their
dentists about what’s best for their child [27].
Its here where the video begins to reiterate many of the topics that I have already debunked and since I've lost my patience, I will begin to close. Water fluoridation is currently in an information positive feedback loop as the type described in Micheal Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. The amount of misinformation on the internet regarding water fluoridation is astounding. The misinformed people feed in misinformation which perpetuates the feedback loop cycling ever onward. It's time to throw a wrench in the gears.
![[18]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Groundwater-fluoride-world.svg){kind=link}