|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
10th August 2007, 07:52 AM | #1 |
New Blood
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1
|
Fluoridation Episode...
Fluoridation Episode
It occurred to me while listening to this episode for the second time that there is a serious flaw in the logic of opponents to Fluoridation. According to Kevin Hoover’s research there are no known victims of the myriad health issues claimed by Fluoridation opponents. A simple Google search bears this fact out. Anti-Fluoride people claim that the victims are “un-diagnosed”! Do you see the flaw in their logic? If the maladies are un-diagnosed how did they know that fluoride was the pathogen? |
10th August 2007, 09:16 AM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
Because flourine is "Rat Poison". We had a nationally known journalist who rode that hobby horse to his death (nothing to do with flourine as best I can tell) at the age of 82. RIP Gordon Sinclair!
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
10th August 2007, 03:56 PM | #3 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,974
|
I'm surprised Brian didn't make a Dr. Strangelove reference. The classical example of anti-fluoridation woo run amok.
|
__________________
"As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold" |
|
4th September 2007, 03:20 PM | #4 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 183
|
The international communist conspiracy is just a little too big for me to take on.
|
__________________
Skeptoid Podcast - Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena |
|
4th September 2007, 08:59 PM | #5 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,974
|
|
__________________
"As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold" |
|
4th September 2007, 09:54 PM | #6 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
|
Are you joking? A Google search shows half a million hits on the dangers and health risk from Fluoridation. If your premise is based on a false claim, which is obvious by actually doing a Google search, why would anyone take you seriously?
It took 2 minutes to find hard scientific evidence that Fluoridation is dangerous, and there is no science at all to back up the claim it improves the health by adding it to water. In fact, the overwhelming evidence is that adding fluoride to water has killed people, and increased health risk, especially in children. Nobody with a few minutes to spare and half a brain can deny this. (Sadly, I'm sure some dumbass with nothing for evidence is going to try, of course). The National Research Council of the National Academies knows fluoride is dangerous, the CDC that found 32 percent of U.S. children have dental fluorosis, which is caused by fluoride, and that fluoride is only beneficial in reducing tooth decay when it’s applied topically, not taken systemically. The American Dental Association recommends not giving fluoridated water to infants for the first 12 months of life, Harvard University study that found a five- to seven-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) among young men who were exposed to fluoride between the ages of 6 and 8. The list goes on and on. And before you start squawking, (Don't ask me why, but people do when faced with the facts), try reading some stuff, about the real danger of adding flouride (yes, it is a poison), to drinking water.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For those that can't be bothered to actually read anything, in all cases the fluoride equipment malfunctioned and put too much flouride in the water. Best guess why so few died is the horrible taste water has when rat poison, I mean, fluoride, is added to it, prevented most people from drinking it. Why would any skeptic not bother to check the facts before making claims is beyond me. I don't care if you want to remain dumb about the matter, but don't pretend to be a skeptic if you can't be bothered to do any research. Europe has either banned or outlawed fluoride in drinking water. Based on science. No conspiracy needed, just looking at the facts is enough to convince sane rational people that adding poison to drinking water is a bad idea. I apologize for the harshness of the reality here, so please don't do anything dumb to make it worse. |
5th September 2007, 11:27 AM | #7 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th September 2007, 12:11 PM | #8 |
New Blood
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
|
According to the links Robinson included, it appears flouride is ineed a poison...in excessive amounts.
However, the episode makes the claim, "Years of research and testing in different cities and states, conducted by the National Health Service, determined that one part per million was the ideal proportion, giving the same protection from decay, and avoiding the dental fluorosis." Clearly the NCBI articles Robinson cited are situations involving amounts of flouride well above the 1ppm threshold, in some cases as much as 375ppm. Most of the articles did not give a ppm concentration, but I trust the cases are similar. I invite Robinson to narrow the focus of his research, and to refute (if he can) this statement from the episode: "There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades that one part per million of fluoride is best for health, and exactly zero rigorously conducted scientific trials that have indicated any sign of danger." Are there any movements afoot in Europe to ban the flouridation of salt, I wonder? |
6th September 2007, 12:25 PM | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
|
This is the sort of claim that makes rational people cringe. It is not even wrong. It is almost beyond explaining why it is a nonsense statement.
This becomes obvious to the skeptic who simply examines it. I don't debate with strawmen, but in this case, it is such an easy target, it is worth burning. "There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades" False. But it is a claim, so the person making this claim, should support it with evidence. It will quickly become obvious if you actually do some research, that there is no evidence for the claim, but lots showing it is simply not true. "one part per million of fluoride is best for health" This is just dumb. I'm not even going to explain why. It would be best to restate it in a manner that could actually be discussed. " exactly zero rigorously conducted scientific trials that have indicated any sign of danger" Another claim, but the kind that doesn't even make sense. It is also false, even if you accept the twisted logic of it. Again, all these claims are being made, hence the person making them is under the simple rule that if you want it to be accepted, or at least discussed, you have to show evidence that the claim is valid. This is not in dispute by anyone. The person making a claim bears the burden of showing why it should be viewed as true. That being said, because I refuted a claim, "There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades", I don't need to offer any evidence. But because it is so easy to do, http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-3/313-153.htm there it is. That page also has links and references and scientific stuff in it. I'm not vouching for the authenticity of the letters, but it is obvious from even a quick search, that the claims made, which I responded to, are bogus. |
6th September 2007, 01:56 PM | #10 |
Metasyntactic Variable
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
|
Not to be taken seriously...
Fouridated water, adopting shelter pets, and MTV are all parts of a Great Communist Plot. This is how it was all explained to me (country-hick accent simulated for esthetic purposes):
... Y'see, iffn we elects them commies to our city gummints, they'll use their Kremlin subsidies to buy up all the water rights and put floride inta our water supplies. We drink the water, and viola, our bones and teeth gets all brittle-like. Them commies also buy into kids toys like "Pound Puppies" to promote the idee that gettin yer next dawg from the pound is a Good Thing, even iffn that dawg is one o them commie-bred pit bull types. Soon you gots all kinds of "cute" yet vicious kid-eating commie pit bull dawgs just a hair's-breadth away from a psychotic epeesod. Then ther's MTV. Now, it warnt so bad in the beginnin, but it soon became the stage for ever commie band in the world. Enny kid what could play three cords and girlie-screem in three-part harmony could git theyselfs on the TV and spread they subverzhn like nobody's business. Anyway, the plan was ta hold this here consert to Save tha Whales, Feed tha Children, and pay old Willie Nelson's tax bills. It was gonna be big, but I tell ya, when the Berlin wall came down, it kinda ruint them plans right now. Y'see, the riginal plan was ta play some whale songs over MTV. Cept they wernt real whale songs, but some fake stuff they did up in some Kremlin sound studio. So they play this music, and ever kid what ever dopted a pound dawg is listning on they TV, rat next ta they favrit commie dawg. The dawg wudd hear that commie whale music and go psycho all over the kids, whose bones was so brittle from all that floride that one crunch, and thats all she rote for tha kiddies. Ma and pa too! They come runnin in and fall over and break ever bone in they bodies. Then the red army comes rollin in, shoots the dawgs, turns off the TVs, sweeps the body parts into the gutter, and moves in right into our homes without a struggle. Then it's "Velkom to Amerika, Komradski!" ... Cute little story, eh? Told to me more-or-less as shown by a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society. I make no claim to its accuracy. |
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.
|
|
6th September 2007, 04:33 PM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
7th September 2007, 02:47 AM | #12 |
New Blood
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
|
Robinson, I agree...too much flouride: bad.
According to Brian's information, there appears to be broad scientific consensus that there is a health benefit to be gained when the proper amount of flouride is present in drinking water. The claims are not bogus, but are open to debate, as are all claims. The cases you cited all seem to point to problems occuring when flouridation systems are used improperly, or when abnormal amounts of naturally occuring flouride are present. Are there any indications that the citizens of Arcata are suffering as a result of their rejection of Measure W? How about in communities that have had flouride regulation even longer? I live in Seattle where voter-approved flouridation began in 1969. I can't say I've noticed anything, but then, I haven't really been looking. Are there reports of problems in areas where flouride is properly regulated at the recommended level of 1ppm? Perhaps you believe there is no safe amount? |
7th September 2007, 02:51 AM | #13 |
New Blood
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
|
Flouride @ 1ppm - good or bad?
whoops...accidental duplication...
|
7th September 2007, 03:35 AM | #14 |
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,709
|
Quote:
In a very quick google scholar search I found the following (there were lots more to go through, but I haven't time at the moment). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Citation http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...tract/28/2/300 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1997.tb02964.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Citation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Citation |
__________________
Sponsor me please! http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan1 My blog |
|
7th September 2007, 04:19 AM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
We did this one before - but short version: Fluoride (specifically, tin (stannous) fluoride) in the quantities normally added to water supplies is not harmful - unless the water supply is already naturally supplied with chloride and locals did not test the water first. Mostly, younger people will have brownish teeth in that case. More later!!
|
7th September 2007, 10:46 AM | #16 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Mea culp. above I said chloride, meant fluoride in third line
|
7th September 2007, 11:06 AM | #17 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
|
I wasn't going to say anything.
|
7th September 2007, 01:27 PM | #18 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,433
|
"There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades that one part per million of fluoride is best for health, and exactly zero rigorously conducted scientific trials that have indicated any sign of danger."
“There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades that one part per million of fluoride is best for health.” So: what level of F causes fluorosis, and what level of F improves dental health? 1 ppm is insufficient to cause fluorosis, but high enough to improve dental health. Therefore "best for health". Which has been known since the 1930s/1940s (ref 1-3). That’s decades. And as for a consensus, the CDC and Surgeon General of the US have this to say:
Quote:
Looks like there’s a consensus on the value and safety of community water fluoridation, among such scientific and medical organisations as the CDCs and the WHO. That should be “a broad scientific and medical consensus” in most people’s books. A few voices of dissent do not bring down a consensus. Is there a consensus specifically on the use of the 1 ppm F level?
Quote:
The CDC and an NRC evaluation committee agree on that one. So does the scientific literature, going back decades, as mentioned previously. “Zero rigorously conducted scientific trials indicating any sign of danger”: This one is trickier to confirm without a thorough search of the literature. However, if a rigorously controlled trial had indicated any sign of danger, it should have spurred further work in order to confirm or refute it’s findings. Even if such a trial exists, it was not sufficient to challenge the consensus that “1 ppm of F is best for health”. As mentioned above: “More recent reviews of the safety of water fluoridation include a comprehensive review of the scientific literature by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 and the University of York in 2000.” They couldn’t find anything of sufficient import to change the consensus on the safety of community water fluoridation. I’ll take their word for it. So a consensus exists, 1 ppm F is the agreed upon value (within a range of 0.7 – 1.2 ppm, so if you prefer, it’s an average value), and it’s been that way for decades. Even if there are trials indicating dangers from 1 ppm F community water fluoridation, they are not sufficiently concerning to change the guidelines, and I personally couldn’t find any. In conclusion, briandunning gets a cookie for being right and bright. ------------------ 1. Dean, H.T. "Classification of mottled enamel diagnosis." Journal of the American Dental Association, 21, 1421 - 1426, 1934. 2. Dean, H.T. "Chronic endemic dental fluorosis." Journal of the American Dental Association, 16, 1269 - 1273, 1936. 3. DEAN, H.T. (1942): The Investigation of Physiological Effects by the Epidemiological Method. In: Fluorine and Dental Health, F.R. Moulton, Ed., Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 23-31. |
1st October 2007, 07:45 AM | #19 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 183
|
I actually do agree with those who object to fluoridation on the grounds that it's government-mandated medication. But that's the libertarian in me speaking, and I made a conscious choice not to beat this particular horse in the podcast as I really do try to avoid politicizing my science.
Besides - I do want to fluoridate my teeth. If my choices are to buy expensive fluoride solution for several dollars an ounce, or have the right amount included in my drinking water virtually for free, I'd snap up the fluoridation option without hesitation. I do wish there was a practical way for the individual to choose whether they want it. |
__________________
Skeptoid Podcast - Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|