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

Long dismissed as kooks, Dallas' anti-fluoride activists are speaking out again. This time, we might listen.

In Dallas, an Anti-Fluoride Movement for Once Not Dismissed
Dylan Hollingsworth
Anti-fluoridation activist Regina Imburgia — note the lack of a tinfoil hat.

During a recent city council meeting, Regina Imburgia, a 58-year-old homemaker and self-described anti-fluoridation activist, walked to the microphone to talk about why Dallas should stop putting fluoride in its drinking water. She had spoken to the council several times before, and also to the television reporters who cover City Hall, whom she hoped would do stories about her cause. But the reporters weren't biting, and the council never gave an indication it was even listening.

This time was different. Three of the council's 15 members, making no promises, said they thought the city should at least take another look at fluoridation. That may not seem to you like a history-making moment, but it was for Imburgia. On the way out, she says, she slipped up to one of the reporters who had shot her down in the past and said, "Now is it news?"

"Yup," he responded, according to Imburgia. "Now it is."

Indeed, the story received a smattering of blog, TV and print coverage that evening and the next morning. The news value in most of it seemed to be the fact that anyone had listened to her at all.

Anti-fluoridation activism has a long, bad name in this country, dating to the 1950s, when it was a trope in the larger phenomenon of the anti-communist "Red Scare" movement. One of my own childhood memories is some kind of battle — I was too little to get most of it — in which my dad, an Episcopal minister, wound up tossing a bunch of anti-fluoridation militants out of his church.

Ours was a household in which the father was always the hero. I grew up thinking of anti-fluoridationists as being sort of like the creatures in the movie The Body Snatchers, which I saw somewhere in that same general time period. If there were a movie poster, it would say, "First, they infiltrate the churches! Then, the minister kicks them out!"

In Imburgia's case, I thought I saw some of that same old trope surfacing in the week after her first little wavelet of news coverage. The Dallas County Dental Society immediately published a statement characterizing Imburgia and her band as marginal types, if not actual body snatchers, saying, "We believe the claims and tactics used by fluoride opponents are not founded in research, but fear ..."

A couple days later Dallas Morning News columnist Jacquielynn Floyd, normally thoughtful and measured in her considerations, had a column in the paper under an uncharacteristically strident headline: "Anti-fluoride Cranks at City Hall: Is it Something in the Water?"

She wrote: "Boy, talk about a crusade that never dies! Fluoride conspiracy paranoia has waxed and waned since the days of Howdy Doody and coonskin caps."

On the one hand, all my own biases and childhood memories made me want to view the anti-fluoridationists the way she did. On the other, I was mindful of the public debate we experienced here in Dallas recently over airplane spraying of pesticides to control West Nile disease. When activists first raised doubts about the safety of the chemicals being sprayed, The Dallas County Medical Society rushed forward to denounce them as unscientific fear mongers. As that debate unrolled, though, we found out that the anti-spray people had a surprising amount of new science on their side, and that maybe some members of the medical society had been out of med school too long.

With that experience in mind, I went looking to see what had been published lately. I came across a very disturbing article published in March in The Lancet, a British peer-reviewed medical journal considered one of the most prestigious in the world. I guess I found the article disturbing, in part, because I was so ill-informed. Until I read it, for example, I did not know that over the last eight years fluoride was one of six chemicals added to what previously had been a list of only five chemicals known to have damaging effects on brain development in infants and children.

A few cautions: Even though The Lancet is considered one of the world's most respected medical and public health journals, its recent history has not been unblemished. In 2010 the journal was forced to retract an article linking vaccines to autism after it was revealed some researchers working on the article were paid by lawyers for families seeking to sue vaccine makers. There were also scientific conflicts The Lancet said the author had concealed from editors.

And for this recent paper, 25 of the 27 fluoride studies they looked at were in China, the authors told me by email. They're not claiming any knowledge of the safety of American drinking water fluoridation, they wrote, and they've written that "fluoride released into the ground water in China in some cases greatly exceeded levels that are typical in the U.S."

"These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.," they wrote. "On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present."

They haven't always been so cautious, though. In July 2012, speaking to the newsletter of the Harvard School of Public Health for a story about their ongoing research, one of the authors sounded a bit more emphatic about fluoride. Phillippe Grandjean, an adjunct professor of environmental health at Harvard, said, "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain."

1
 
2
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
146 comments
pattif58
pattif58

If only the "Truth" were what people wanted... It would be great, if in these debates, that the party that has the power now would have to present evidence as though they were trying to get it approved now.  The Fluoride pushers got in a long time ago.  We have learned a lot since then.  If they had to push their product from the outside now, it would not be approved!


But unfortunately the $$ is in control and they have the power!


Don't give up though, the voice off the American people still matters

Skeptical
Skeptical

Given all the fluoride-based pesticides used on foods in the USA, why are cities fluoridating tap water? All these fluoride ions are bio accumulating in the body from all sources. Why do you want it in tap water too? Where's the scientific lab work proving it's even necessary?

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

In 2004 and 2005, EPA approved the registration of sulfuryl fluoride as a pesticide to be used to kill insects in harvested and processed foods such as cereal grains, dried fruits, tree nuts, cocoa beans, coffee beans, and insect infestations in food handling and processing facilities.

The pesticide breaks down into fluoride, whose residues can contaminate food. Over-exposure to fluoride can be toxic, causing dental fluorosis (mottling and loss of tooth enamel) and skeletal fluorosis (joint pain, stiffness and bone fractures).

Cryolite is actually sodium aluminum fluoride... This sodium aluminum fluoride is especially effective at killing bugs, It's also very sticky, so when they spray it, it's more likely to stick on your produce. Iceberg lettuce can now be laced with a startling 180 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride - 180 times higher than the `recommended' water fluoridation level. Black tea is also high in fluoride.

*Citrus fruits are actually allowed to contain 95 ppm's of sodium fluoride.

*Potatoes can have as much as 22 ppm's on the outside, and 2 ppm inside.

*Raisins are allowed 55 ppm's.

You can't cook fluoride out and it doesn't evaporate. And there is no shortage of fluoride in America.

Skeptical
Skeptical

Another thing these dentists fail to tell patients is that chronic overexposure to fluoride can cause tooth loss.
See PubMed:

"[Fluorine as a factor in premature aging]. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16892576

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

And the CDC reports 41% of 12-15 year old teenagers now have "dental fluorosis". This statistic included teenagers in both non-fluoridated areas as well as fluoridated areas. But they keep pushing for more and more water fluoridation. What gives? I guess dental implants are pretty lucrative.

rain392
rain392

I am oldest child and grew up with no floride in water until I was 16.  I have cavities, root canals, bridges and now the root canals have cavities.  My siblings who are 6 and 13 years younger than I have many fewer cavities, few extractions and caps/root canals.  We are all 60 years plus.  My kids who had floride all their lives have a sprinkling of cavities and one root canal between them.  They are 44-48.  From a very small number of people in my family I can report that those in my family exposed to no floride, have had many long hours at the dentist, pain and dental expenses which never ends.


Those who have had floride put in the water had had few cavities, extractions, root canals and the other miseries of dental care.   All the brushing, dental visits and prevention has been done.  Flossing is done religiously. No one has had any side effects of the floride.  I just wish I had been exposed to it my whole childhood.

DebbyBruck
DebbyBruck

Have you noticed increase in Thyroid disorders? Endocrine disruptors like fluoride, which is a chemical added to the water supply is mass medicating a population without any consideration of age, weight, gender, etc. and how much water each person drinks daily. How will this chemical affect the life and health of each citizen? We are all one huge experiment, similar to the mouse study below which demonstrates that fluoride takes up the place of iodine, so necessary for thyroid function and good metabolism. Do we have an obesity epidemic? 


Long-term Effects of Various Iodine and Fluorine Doses on the Thyroid and Fluorosis in Mice. Both iodine deficiency and excess induced goiter as well as other functional and histopathological changes in the mouse thyroid. Excessive fluorine caused fluorosis of incisors and limb bones. In addition, iodine and fluorinee do have mutually interacting effects on both goiter and fluorosis in the experimental mice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10330519

heperd
heperd

Since the government is not going to do anything about it then we have to! I am accepting donations that will go towards hand delivereling non-poison water to residents of Dallas and surrounding areas. We cant just sit around arguing in a comments section while children are being poisoned!!!!

Please contact me for details.

half
half

It says a lot about the strength of the anti fluoride argument if they have to have legal help to get there reasons into law.

If there arguments are so strong, they should be able to stand up to public scrutiny with out legal help or bullying.

Obviously they dont

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

Grandjean makes a religion out of the precautionary principle.  Nothing is safe enough for him.  Just find out what evidence he has that make him consider a nutrient -- as fluoride is classifiied -- to be poisonous.  The evidence should rightly have been included in the Lancet article, but it's not there.

shan.sharklet
shan.sharklet

This is a Fantastic article with a great conclusion. Well balanced, and cuts through the shit with lots of up- to date scientific  info. Please submit this piece for a journalism award of some kind. I was so disgusted with the  Florida coverage of this issue that won a biased writer a Pultizer. It did not deserve to and really  made me feel sick.  The data here is top notch and up to date and the conclusion is spot on. This article  also gets to the heart of the matter - that we need to turn the world upside down and stop adding chemicals into the environment before we know the effects they could have on the next generation. It is simply ludicrous that things have been like this for the last 50 years, but that does not mean we should not have the courage to say: "enough already!" and make real changes.  We here  in Ireland are forced by an archaic 1963 law to consume fluoride in our water, although the party now  in power promised it would stop water fluoridation  if it was re- elected  back in 2001. 

So 15000 people here in Ireland are now  taking court action against our state to make it end Forced fluoridation here. Please support us  by  buying a naked  calendar from www.thegirlagainstfluoride.com 


All  the money the calendar  raises will help to  fund our court battle , Thanks, Shan :)


NoNonsense
NoNonsense

Silicofluoride promoters always claim safe water advocates are a "marginalized group" but that's just not the case. Close to 70% of Canadians have now rejected artificial fluoridation – even in the province of Quebec where the government has offered to pay for it, less than 3% of the people have it. 

Regardless, of whether you believe fluoride is beneficial or harmful, every batch of silicofluoride contains arsenic and every batch varies because it's difficult to control what comes off the smokestack scrubbers used to control toxic gas emissions. These chemicals are not regulated as drugs, nutrient supplements nor as food additives. They are classified as persistent, bio-accumulative toxins. Your dishwasher, lawns, toilets and laundry will never require them and isn't that where most of it goes?

Skeptical
Skeptical

Hmm? And dental fluorosis due to chronic fluoride overexposure seems to be a little more than just cosmetic too. See "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds".

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026

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

Perhaps we have a case of the "fox guarding the hen house"?

April17
April17

@rain392 

According to the Physician's Desk Reference, the mucosal lining inside the mouth has an absorption efficiency of over ninety percent. Because of this, fluoride and other contaminants can get into your blood, your brain, and your cells in no time at all.

The most significant flaw in fluoride research is the failure to account for the inhalation, mucosal, and dermal exposure to fluoride compounds. It invalidates all dosage conclusion based solely on ingestion. How do you think sublingual Vitamin B-12 or nitroglycerin tablets for heart patients work?

So this means you can get the "systemic effect" you seek without adding man-made hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride to everyone's tap water. All people need to do is brush with a fluoridated toothpaste or use a fluoridated mouthwash.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@rain392  Just want to let you know that Singapore has been 100% fluoridated since 1958.  Currently 40% of the preschoolers there are suffering with SEVERE dental caries.

http://yourhealth.asiaone.com/content/40-spore-preschoolers-suffer-severe-tooth-decay

That isn't a success story.  It's a travesty.  You can have perfectly healthy teeth even without fluoride.  Studies have proven this.  Just avoid all the sugar.  There is no reason to poison a whole population with rat poison because poor children eat poor diets.

sslott1
sslott1

@heperd  

Alas.....my brain seems to have become far too used to the antifluoridationist  mindset.   Guess it speaks volumes that the idea of hand delivery of "non-poison" water seems to not be anything out of the ordinary coming from this bunch......


Steven D. Slott, DDS


sslott1
sslott1

@heperd  

Children are being "poisoned"?  In what manner?  What valid scientific evidence do you have to support this claim in regard to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm?  Since you are publicly soliciting donations then certainly you have valid evidence of your claim that children are being "poisoned"........ don't you?

Steven D. Slott, DDS

BillyBudd
BillyBudd

@half  Fortunately, at least in the US, they have never won any significant cases.   A complete data base of all the US legal cases is available at www.fluidlaw.org.

A very good legal opinion supporting fluoridation was written in March in New Zealand.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1403/New_Health_v_Taranaki.pdf

The Judge rejected all grounds of challenge. He confirmed fluoridation is a proper function of water providers and ruled that fluoride as a water additive was not medical treatment under new Zealand law.  He did accept that it has a therapeutic purpose but concludes that the means by which the purpose is effected does not constitute medical treatment. 

He ruled that medical treatment is confined to direct interference with the body or state of mind of an individual and does not extend to public health interventions delivered to the inhabitants of a particular locality or the population at large. He found no distinction between fluoridation and other established public health measures such as chlorination of water or the addition of iodine to salt. 

A similar theme runs through many of the US decisions.  For example the Oregon Supreme Court said:  "(it is) no more practicing medicine or dentistry or manufacturing, preparing, compounding or selling a drug, than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet."

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa Fluoride isn't deemed a nutrient.  What is added to tap water is indeed a bio accumulative rat poison.

half
half

@shan.sharklet It says a lot about the strength of the anti fluoride arguments if they have to have legal help to get them passed into law.

If they were strong enough, they would stand up to public scrutiny on there own, with out legal help,  Obviously they dont

BillyBudd
BillyBudd

@shan.sharklet  Ireland was the only country to report their WHO cavity data separately for fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. . .guess what??  fewer cavities with fluoridation.   


That really is the point of the program . . fewer cavities.


BillyBudd
BillyBudd

@shan.sharklet  - - readers can decide whether they should believe sharklet or believe the overwhelming consensus of legitimate scientists and professionals.  That the Tampa Bay Times so clearly and effectively brought the truth to their readers was the reason that the Pulitzer was awarded.   You don't win Pulitzers by opposing one of the most important public health accomplishments of the 20th century.   


The propaganda brought to the public by the formal allies of the Fluoride Action Network, the anti-vaccination movement and snake oil salesman Mercola might reasonably be up for a Darwin award I suppose.

sslott1
sslott1

NoNonsense

The barely detected, minuscule amount of arsenic detected in fluoridated falls so far short of EPA mandated maximum levels of safety, as to be negligible. Obviously, it is of no concern.

At less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridated water, as long as it is effective, which countless peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated it to be, with no adverse effects on humans or the environment, it makes no difference how much of it goes into "the dishwasher, lawns, toilets, and laundry". There is no other dental decay preventive measure that even approaches the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Skeptical
Skeptical

@sslott1 @heperd

It's rat poison Slott.  RAT POISON.  The fluoride used for water fluoridation IS RAT POISON!!  It's always been rat poison.  A biocide/pesticide/rodenticide.  Do you think forcing people to consume and bathe in a bio accumulative rat poison throughout their entire lives won't cause ill effects in the vulnerable?  In infants?  In the elderly?  In kidney patients?  Even Harold Hodge knew it was rat poison.

"Appointed initially in biochemistry, Hodge pursued dental research including the toxicity of fluoride, as there was a huge stigma against using fluoride for the public health. (It was, after all, a RAT POISON.) "

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full

All it takes is a little common sense to see that a bio accumulative rat poison could cause harm to infants, children, the elderly, kidney patients, and others who are vulnerable.  But I do realize common sense doesn't grow in everyone's garden.

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

Dear Skeptical:  Just ask any dietitian.  It's a nutrient.

"Rat poison" is a scare term.  You'd have to work very hard to poison a rodent with fluoride ions.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@half @shan.sharklet Where's the lab work proving anyone is deficient in this rat poison?  Ya know, real science?  Instead of politics?

Skeptical
Skeptical

@BillyBudd

Do you read PubMed?  Do you consider it an anti-fluoridation website?  There was no increase in dental caries in Finland when they discontinued water fluoridation.

On PubMed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9758426
"Caries frequency before and after discontinuation of water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland"

"In spite of discontinued water fluoridation, no indication of an increasing trend of caries could be found in Kuopio. The mean numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications decreased sharply in both towns between 1992 and 1995. In spite of that caries declined."

How do you explain this?

Skeptical
Skeptical

@sslott1 No amount of arsenic is safe.  Arsenic causes cancer and people like you are adding it to everyone's tap water with the rat poison you are peddling for poor children's teeth.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@sslott1  

Dr. Slott, is there any way I can prevail upon you to address the issues raised in the Lancet article regarding neurotoxins and fetal and infant brain development.?  You obviously have devoted a good deal of time and effort to the questions of fluoridation of drinking water and adult toxicity. Your views are most welcome here, as are the views of those who argue against you. But I am beginning to find it odd that you won't move from the same sorts of comments you make on lots of other sites, which do get a bit ad hominem. Won't you take a shot at tackling what this story is actually about. Please?

tonilmcmahon
tonilmcmahon

@sslott1  Oh, hey you have below average trust rating according to 11 people that visited your practice matey lol :)


Below the National Average according to your clients in the following gradings ol' Stevo 

Level of trust in provider's decisions

How well provider explains medical condition(s)

How well provider listens and answers questions

Spends appropriate amount of time with patients


Not sure if you should be throwing your weight around as you do.



http://www.healthgrades.com/dentist/dr-steven-slott-2wgl4/patient-ratings


tonilmcmahon
tonilmcmahon

@sslott1  Um, except brushing and flossing and not buying softdrink and sugary processed rubbish lol.

spiritualhealing
spiritualhealing

@Skeptical @sslott1 @heperd Thank god there are sensible people like you out there. This issue drives me nuts. It goes against all medical ethics to mass medicate the population and there is no valid argument for doing so. I am sick to death of being called a conspiracy theorist because I can see common sense. They are poisoning us, plain and simple and the general population is allowing them to do it. the people are their own worst enemies. You are correct, it is and has always been rat poison. Do people actually think these fat cats care about our teeth? Anyone who believes that must also believe in the tooth fairy.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa 

Harvard didn't refer to fluoride as a nutrient at all.  It was referred to as a "toxicant" and "POISON", similar to LEAD and MERCURY.

When did consuming and bathing in a cumulative poison rate higher than the brains of our children?

From Harvard: "Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children"

"Some studies suggested that even SLIGHTLY increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain."

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other POISONS that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

And parents wonder why their children are getting sick all the time.

April17
April17

@linda.and.rosa 

I call it what it is.  Anytime you remove calcium from naturally occurring "calcium fluoride" you are left with a biocide/pesticide/rodenticide.  A general protoplasmic poison.  Rat poison.  Fluoride seeks out calcium in nature, in water, in teeth, in bone, and in calcified arteries. It binds to calcium to form "calcium fluoride".  Fluoride is used as a antidote for fluoride poisoning.

The LD50 level of a chemical compound is what it takes to kill 50% of the population. The LD50 for naturally occurring "calcium fluoride" is 4250 mg/kg. The LD50 for man-made "sodium fluoride" is 52-200 mg/kg. And the LD50 for man-made "hexafluorosilicic acid" is 70 mg/kg. Do you see a difference here?  These chemicals used for water fluoridation are indeed more toxic to the body than naturally occurring "calcium fluoride" is.

It's not a "scare tactic".  It's FACT.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@sslott1 According to the Physician's Desk Reference, the mucosal lining inside the mouth has an absorption efficiency of over ninety percent. Because of this, fluoride and other contaminants can get into your blood, your brain, and your cells in no time at all.

The most significant flaw in fluoride research is the failure to account for the inhalation, mucosal, and dermal exposure to fluoride compounds.  It invalidates all dosage conclusion based solely on ingestion.  How do you think sublingual Vitamin B-12 and nitroglycerin tablets work?

With that said, why are you pushing for everyone to have fluoride in their tap water when they can get the systemic effect just by brushing their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste or using a mouthwash with fluoride?

sslott1
sslott1

@heperd  

Good point.  I just tend to get carried away sometimes thinking that science has any bearing on this issue.....

Steven D. Slott, DDS

heperd
heperd

Come on doc. Lets not get into all these scientific facts and what not. After all, we know that all of the scientists are part of a global conspiracy to poison all future generations very slowly with very small amounts of chemicals. We can at least agree on that cant we?

sslott1
sslott1

JimSX

Jim, your lack of comprehension of the science of water fluoridation is understandable. In all likelihood, you have little or no science or healthcare background, with the citations and "sciensese" probably being well over your head at this point. However, as a news writer, you are in a position to guide and influence large numbers of people. Instead of squandering this opportunity by holding fast to one perspective of an issue, while ignoring and denying all others, you would far better serve your readers by seeking to expand your knowledge rather than attempting to cover your deficiency with bluster. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, the National Sanitary Foundation, and the World Health Organization each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation readily available to anyone. This would be a good starting point for you. I'll be glad to help you better understand, if you so desire.

In regard to my own motivations, it is my professional responsibility to improve the health of our entire citizenry. Advocating for water fluoridation is but one small part of this responsibility. I have spent the overwhelming majority of my 32 year dental career providing dental care, and advocating publicly and privately, for the underserved population. I have done so both in my private practice in North Carolina, composed primarily of Medicaid recipients, low-income, and indigent individuals, as well as in a large free dental program I founded and directed for 6 years, on a purely voluntary basis, in my state and 6 others. I'm not sure why antifluoridationists always seem to feel that one must be "paid" to do the right thing, but I have never received, and will never receive any compensation for my advocacy for fluoridation or anything else in that regard. If you had seen even a small part of the extreme pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection with which I have dealt during my entire career, in those who have little or no options to receive treatment, you may understand a little better my motivations.

Yes, as you've noticed, I have very little patience with, or tolerance for, those such as Imburgia, Nyscof, Connett, and others such as they who have little understanding of this issue, no understanding of healthcare, and no understanding of the challenges faced by tens of millions of our citizens who suffer constantly with untreated dental disease. These activists not only do absolutely nothing to improve the problem with access to healthcare, but they seek to undermine the efforts of those of us who are doing everything in our power the fight this increasingly losing battle with untreated disease, through their campaign of misinformation, deceptive tactics and ridiculous attempts to portray all of mainstream science and healthcare as corrupt and incompetent. Prevention is the best weapon we have, yet these activists with their arsenal of half-truths, out-of-context quotes, misinterpretations of study results, and outright misinformation, seek to remove one of the best preventive measures we have against dental decay.

If you care to understand from where I come with all of this, the following sites will give you some idea.

http://www.dentistry.unc.edu/news/2006/2006-03-16_momclinics.cfm

http://www.darenc.com/articles/articlesid.asp?recid=150

http://nciom.org/wp-content/uploads/NCMJ/sept-oct-05/bad/Slott.pdf

http://www.ncmpact.org/Pages/AwardWinners.aspx

You have a professional responsibility too, Jim. You owe far more to your readers than to limit yourself to the dogma of antifluoridationis activists and factions. There is not one, single argument that they present that I have not seen and addressed repeatedly. That which they consider to be "new" information, is simply the same arguments these factions have been attempting to make since the very beginnings of this initiative in the 1940's. The IQ argument dates back to the early days after WW II, when paranoia over "mind control" by the government was prevalent amongst ultra conservatives such as the John Birch Society and others. Grandjean is simply the latest in a long line of those who have sought to establish a link between fluoridation and mind control, now cloaked as "IQ reduction", by beginning with a pre-conceived conclusion and working backward to try to prove it. He presents nothing new, and certainly nothing that has not been long since considered and addressed by the CDC, the EPA, the WHO, and the countless highly respected organizations and individuals who fully understand the issue and fully support it.

You have a clear choice. you can continue to adhere to the uninformed dogma of activists, or you can pay heed to the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare. You can seek to educate, through your writing, or you can choose to mislead and misinform......to the detriment of your citizenry.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

BillyBudd
BillyBudd

@JimSX @BillyBudd  - Qin found that IQ was best at optimized fluoride .


This is similar to Li's bone study which found that fractures were least at optimized fluoride


And similar to 70 years of fluoridation research which finds that oral health is best at optimized fluoride.


Literature references happily added on request.

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

@JimSX 

Dear Jim,

You assume that ill effects at very high and very low indicates there is no beneficial middle range. This is faulty reasoning when it comes to nutrients such as fluoride.  

 Take another nutrient such as vitamin A.  Too little intake is a "deficiency" and too much is "toxicity."  

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@sslott1  

You guys (or you guy) are sort of hilarious. Your arguments trend farther and farther out into the absurd, heavily salted with irrelevant citations and sciensese, and when I finally have enough and call you on it, you accuse me of having a "confirmation bias" and being paranoid. I have dealt with all kind of commenters, from the brilliant to the knuckle-dragging, including a lot of paid ad agency people hired to sway opinion in elections by commenting under pseudonyms. I'm not sure exactly what you are. But you are not scientists and your interest is not sincere. There is something quite not right about you.  

kferre512
kferre512

@JimSX @BillyBudd


Let me make this really easy for your non-science, confused understanding of the Qin study.  BillyBudd didn't mention that Qin showed a U-shaped curve.


Picture an X/Y graph:  the X or horizontal  line is the fluoride level in the water going from zero to 11+ ppm.  The Y line is the effect of IQ, meaning as the reading goes from the intersection of the X/Y, from zero reduced IQ to 7 reduced IQ points.


So, plop a U-shaped curve and have the bottom of the U situated around 1.0 ppm.  The left side of the U is "low ppm" and the right side of the U is "high ppm".  So, Qin's study suggested that at high and low ppm, the IQ loss is the same.  The minimum loss of IQ, which was the bottom of the U and near zero was the optimal level of fluoridation.


What I suggest that you do is plan a trip to China.  Enjoy the industrial pollution and the air that one can cut with a knife.  Look at many of the Chinese nationals who are walking around with face masks on, and ask yourself, is there anywhere in Texas with this kind of pollution?

sslott1
sslott1

JimSX

Your attempt at appearing objective has been peeled away. This statement in regard to "hired guns" seals it. That is classic antifluoridationist conspiracy nonsense.

Now that we have exposed your confirmation bias and your conspiracy paranoia, do you care to exhibit some honesty of your own, and admit that you have been spoon-fed from "fluoridealert" and/or, other such biased antifluoridationist sites? It is blatantly obvious that these are your sources, as you've not stated anything that isn't found on these websites and you have ignored or rejected anything that doesn't agree with their ideology..

I thank you, though. Peeling away antifluoridationist "science" behind which they attempt to cloak the true basis for their objection, personal ideology, is one of my main goals in these comment sections. Decision-makers need to understand these tactics, which in the end, always boil down to nothing but science denial and personal ideology.

At least Ms. Floyd did not seek to deceptively hide where she stands with this issue, as you have attempted here.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@BillyBudd  Now I do have to question whether you are making even a minimal effort at intellectual honesty. You quote this language from the Chinese study:  "By testing of the intellectual ability of 447 elementary school students ranging in age from 9 to 10 1/2, it was discovered that both high and low fluoride had an effect on child intelligence. Fluoride levels greater than 2.0 mg/L or less than 0.2 mg/L can disrupt intellectual development."

So the study says fluoride in any amount or dosage can "disrupt intellectual development."

But you interpret this to mean: "The meta-analysis really just shows that optimal water fluoridation is safe for IQ and Qin's study shows that the optimal level is better for neurodevelopment than either high or low fluoride."

Fluoride disrupts at low dosage. Fluoride disrupts at high dosage. So your conclusion is: "no harm at intermediate dosage."

I don't believe somebody who was really engaged with this issue would even think to say something like that. I wish I was allowed to do some URL-sniffing,which I am not, because I'm getting the distinct odor here of hired guns from a boiler room somewhere. Maybe somebody else will snoop for me. 

BillyBudd
BillyBudd

@JimSX @sslott1   - The Lancet article to which you refer has only one reference to fluoride, that to the meta-analysis published earlier by Choi and Grandjean.  It really add totally zero information to this matter.  . . we can discuss the meta-analysis beginning with the fact that the "low" fluoride comparison group had as an average the same as the US optimal fluoridation target.


Also, two studies have been reviewed in the press prior to being published which studied optimal fluoridation . .one from New Zealand and one from Mexico.  The reporting is that neither found any neurotoxic effects at fluoridation concentrations.    We certainly look forward to their addition to the huge literature which has found no evidence of any harm at optimal concentrations.


Of particular interest is a Chinese study Choi mentions in their supplementary information.  By Qin, this is the only study in all those listed which compared low, optimal and high fluoride.


Quoting Qin:  "By testing of the intellectual ability of 447 elementary school students ranging in age from 9 to 10 1/2, it was discovered that both high and low fluoride had an effect on child intelligence. Fluoride levels greater than 2.0 mg/L or less than 0.2 mg/L can disrupt intellectual development."


SOURCE: Qin LS, Cui SY. (1990). The influence of drinking water fluoride on pupils IQ, as measured by Rui Wen's standards. Chinese Journal of the Control of Endemic Diseases 5:203-204.


The meta-analysis really just shows that optimal water fluoridation is safe for IQ and Qin's study shows that the optimal level is better for neurodevelopment than either high or low fluoride.  This is exactly the same as Li demonstrated for bones - - the fewest fractures were associated with optimal fluoridation.


To the extent that the Chinese studies are quoted they can either be said to have shown that water fluoridation was either safe or beneficial to neurodevelopment.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@sslott1  

You say:

"The Lancet article is in regard to environmental neurotoxins, with no differentiation to concentration levels. My concern is with the public health initiative of water fluoridation, for which the Lancet article has very little relevance."

Herein I think I do spy some truth. But first of all, we have to dismiss the idea that the authors of the Lancet article made "no differentiation to concentration levels." Their point, in fact, is that brain development may be influenced at far lower concentration levels that the levels for gross physical toxicity. So it's not as if they are simply ignoring concentration levels.

But could you and I compromise at this? Would you agree that the issues raised in the Lancet article are far afield from the issues you have dealt with an as an activist and scientist dealing with fluoride? In other words, could we agree that neurotoxins and brain development are not an area in which you have expertise to offer?


sslott1
sslott1

JimSX

Jim, you're going to have to look elsewhere to feed your confirmation bias. When antifluoridationists are backed into a corner with facts supported by valid evidence, I've found that they frequently use the "ad hominem" tactic to divert. It seems you have learned well. but that doesn't work with me any more than do any of their other common tactics.

The Lancet article is in regard to environmental neurotoxins, with no differentiation to concentration levels. My concern is with the public health initiative of water fluoridation, for which the Lancet article has very little relevance. As I've said, the fact that fluoride is a neurotoxin at high levels is no more pertinent to fluoride at the optimal level than is one beer to the neurotoxic properties of ethanol, one aspirin to the neurotoxic properties of salicylate, or one packet of sweetener to the neurotoxic properties of aspartame. The Institute of Medicine has clearly established daily upper limits of fluoride intake from all sources before adverse effects will occur.....short term, or long term. For those 8 years and older, this upper limit is 10 mg per day. For those in the teeth developing years of 0-8 years, that daily limit is considerably less, but due only to the risk of mild to very mild dental fluorosis during those years, not due to concerns of neurotoxicity or anything else. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis, that's it. After age 8, the upper limit jumps to 10 mg per day. As you obviously have not researched this issue in the least, I'll be glad to cite my sources if you so desire.

Neurotoxicity is not an issue with water fluoridation. If you have anything of relevance to fluoride at optimal level. I'll be glad to discuss it. But if you're going to simply deny the science and continue to seek to tie neurotoxicity to water fluoridation, you're just wasting time.

In the meantime, here is some reading for you:

After an exhaustive 3 year review of the pertinent fluoride literature by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride, they determined neurotoxicity of fluoride to not be of significant concern at the level of 4.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

-----Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of

EPA's Standards

Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National

Research Council

From the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER):

"SCHER agrees that there is not enough evidence to conclude that fluoride in drinking water at concentrations permitted in the EU may impair the IQ of children. SCHER also agrees that a biological plausibility for the link between fluoridated water and IQ has not been established."

----Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks SCHER

Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water.  16 May, 2011

From Ross, Daston and Whitford:

"A seven-year study compared the health and behavior of children from birth through six years of age in communities with optimally fluoridated water with

those of children the same age without exposure to optimally fluoridated water. Medical records were reviewed yearly during the study. At age six and seven, child behavior was measured using both maternal and teacher ratings. The results suggested that there was no evidence to indicate that exposure to optimally fluoridated water had any detectable effect on children’s health or behavior. These results did not differ even when data was controlled for family social background.

The research conducted by Mullenix et al discussed in this question has not been replicated by other researchers."

----Ross JF, Daston GP. Neurotoxicology and Teratology   1995;17(6):685-6

----Whitford GM. The metabolism and toxicity of fluoride, 2nd rev. ed. Monographs in oral science, Vol. 16.  Basel, Switzerland: Karger;1996.

From Ross and Daston:

"We do not believe the study by Mullinex, et al. can be interpreted in any way as indicating the potential for NaF to be a neurotoxicant"

Dr. Joseph F. Ross, DVM, PhD

Dr. George P. Daston, PhD

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No. 6, pp 685-686 1995

Steven D. Slott, DDS

sslott1
sslott1

Regina.imburgia

WOW, Regina, this makes about as much sense as all the other uninformed nonsense you been spreading around.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or just more junk you've been spoon-fed from antifluoridationists and their websites?

Steven D.

BillyBudd
BillyBudd

@tonilmcmahon @sslott1  While these are good ideas from an individual perspective they are non-starters from a public health viewpoint.  Public health seeks to improve the health of entire populations.  Decreasing sugar based fluids is a good idea but will take years of education and any such educational program should proceed with fluoridation in place.


Especially with respect to baby tooth cavities, some of your suggestions have been specifically studied.   Motivational interviews work but have a poorer economic payback and reach far fewer children.    Fluoridation is by far the most cost effective and reaches essentially all the population.


For a graph from the Colorado computer simulation model see:


http://photos.oregonlive.com/photogallery/2014/05/return_on_investment_-_fluorid.html


The abstract is here:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22380939


Prev Chronic Dis. 2012 Mar;9:E66. A simulation model for designing effective interventions in early childhood caries.  Hirsch GB, Edelstein BL, Frosh M, Anselmo T.


April17
April17

@April17 Edit my above sentence:

CALCIUM is used as an antidote for "fluoride poisoning".  Not fluoride.  Sorry for the typo.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@sslott1 

It's not about science at.  It's politics and money, as usual.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@sslott1 

Slott, do you have lab work proving anyone in the USA in need of even ONE more "fluoride ion" in their bodies?  Americans are literally swimming in the stuff.  It's not like America is some 3rd world country without access to fluoridated toothpaste at the dollar store for a dollar.  In fact, fluoride is absorbed through the tissues of the mouth just like sublingual Vitamin B-12, or nitroglycerin tablets for heart patients.  If anyone wants the "systemic effects" of fluoride, all they have to do is brush with fluoridated toothpaste, or use mouthwash with fluoride.

So where's they lab work to prove anyone needs another "fluoride ion"?  I'm not referring to the pseudoscience of counting cavities.  I'm referring to lab work.  Real science.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@sslott1 

You don't like PubMed, do you? Here's a case where cavities declined after fluoridation ended in East Germany.

On PubMed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515
"Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany"

"In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This corresponded to the national caries decline and appears to be a new population-wide phenomenon. There is still no explanation for the pattern."

How do you explain this?

 
Loading...