

The case against water fluoridation - marze
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Environment/50_reasons_to_oppose_fluoridation_0109111037.html

======
viraptor
This is a long list of points, that should have "citation needed" attached to
them. Whoever it is, presents some "facts" without any actual source, analysis
or other way to easily verify.

Also, sentence like "The level of fluoride put into drinking water at 1 ppm is
not what nature intended." should not be used by serious people. Body
radiation is also "not what nature intended" - yet, it can stop diseases.

------
altrus
The WHO technical report on fluoridation
(<http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf>) makes specific mention adding
fluoride to drinking water (see page 16), finding it to be a safe and cost
effective means of significantly improving dental health.

Although the WHO report also notes several preconditions, and
contraindications, that should be considered prior to drinking water
fluoridation, including a few that seem to be obliquely mentioned in the
article link, the focus is on maximizing the benefit for the greatest amount
of people. Arguably, that's the point of forming a society in the first place.

The stated reason for reducing current fluoridation levels has more to do with
an increase in its availability from other sources. But this article is
useless in furthering any meaningful discussion so far as it provides little
more than unsubstantiated opinion.

It would be great to have a meaningful discussion on how we can balance the
benefits to society and individual risks, including exactly where the
statistical benefits afforded to a group outweigh the potential risks to
individuals. But this article isn't it.

The broader issue touches on exactly how to frame the social contract between
a government and its people - what rights are you prepared to give up, what
responsibilities will you shoulder, and what risks are you prepared to accept,
in order to benefit from the organization and protections afforded by your
society?

~~~
eof
It is a terrible article.

Water fluoridation has never been proved to work at anything like the rates
people have been lead to believe.

It is true that caries levels have decreased dramatically since fluoridation,
but they have at the same rate in other countries without fluoridation; due to
the availability of fluoride toothpaste.

The studies that originally showed the 'safety' of fluoride in NY in the 40s
were a joke. Paid for by the Carnegie institute, a conclusion already
determined, carried out by dentists who both a) knew which kids were receiving
fluoride or not and b) checked for 'safety' by seeing whether or not teeth got
moddeled.

[http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-
dmft.ht...](http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html)

See that link to see the rate in caries decrease over the last century in both
fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries.

------
lowkey
The US Government via the EPA has recently recommended reducing fluoride
concentration in the water supply citing the fact that the standards were last
set in the 1960's and have not been reviewed since. So it seems like many
other additives we are learning more and more about potentially adverse
effects of excessive fluoride exposure.

source: [http://www.zerohedge.com/article/government-reduce-
fluoride-...](http://www.zerohedge.com/article/government-reduce-fluoride-
levels-drinking-water-because-too-much-fluoride-can-cause-health-)

------
marze
In general, if someone wants to feed me a low dose poison, I'd want to see
some bullet-proof safety and efficacy data.

In this case, if the cavity rates between cities with and without fluoride are
similar as the article states, I would pass.

The US just lowered the recommended fluoride level. My own view is that this
is a good thing, but I think everyone should do some research for themselves
and not just accept that the government always makes the right choice.

There are many serious scientists who question the fluoride risk/reward
equation.

------
eli
Seems like a silly thing to worry about.

Even if you're going to worry about tap water, surely lead levels and
antibiotics are more of a threat than fluoride.

------
kschua
"31. Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are forced to drink
fluoridated water. If fluoride is indeed beneficial, people can always take it
as a dietary supplement."

Dietary supplement? The alleged benefit of flouride is to prevent tooth decay,
how does taking it as a dietary supplement prevent tooth decay?

------
microtherion
As a foreigner, I've always wondered why in the US, there were so many
opponents of adding fluoride to drinking water, but I never heard anyone
oppose adding _chlorine_ , which not only is an arguably harmful substance,
but also makes the water taste horribly.

------
rdtsc
Since we have been discussing nutrition lately, I wonder what HNers think of
this?

I have always classified "anti-fluoridation" to the conspiracy theory domain
and never paid much attention to it.

------
Anon84
"Now why don't you just take it easy, Group Captain, and please make me a
drink of grain alcohol and rainwater, and help yourself to whatever you'd
like."

~~~
dablya
"Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with
your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A
foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the
knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your
hard-core Commie works."

~~~
Anon84
Uh, Jack, Jack, listen... tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first...
become... well, develop this theory?

------
eli
Fluoridation is obviously part of a long-term communist mind control plot --
how else do you think Obama won?

------
eof
I was a leading part of an unsuccessful campaign to get fluoride out of the
water in a city in Vermont.

I went from having no idea about the issue to 'convinced' it shouldn't be in
the water in an afternoon when I ran into someone (in my same city years
before we tried to get it out again) petitioning on the street.

The super common sense easy argument is choice. If you are dripping fluoride
into the drinking water, you are effectively medicating a population without
their consent. I am not so poor as to not be able to buy filtered water and/or
a reverse osmosis filtration system, but many families are.

Even if I am able, and choose, not to drink the city's water: the local bread
I buy, I pasta I cook, virtually everything these days that uses water in its
creation process also has fluoride. That is why they are reducing it.. when
the .7-1.2 ppm standard was made.. it was based off the total daily dose
assuming fluoride would only come from water. It took 60 years to realize
total dose is beyond just the tap water drink; the anti-fluoridationists have
been saying this from the beginning.

There are a bunch of studies linking IQ drops to fluoride exposure. Way before
fluoride was a tooth decay miracle, it was an industrial hazard that had
Aluminum plants being sued all over the place. Fluoride played a key role in
developing the nuclear bomb. In two different ways, it is a fluoride-uranium
gas that is run through huge ducts for many miles to slowly enrich uranium; it
was fluorocarbons that were able to lubricate the machines that this gas went
through (everything else would get eaten by the fluorine).

The negative health effects are not hard to find. The only reason this is
still a practice is because some powerful organizations reputations are at
risk; and if instead of dripping what is literally the scrubber fluid from
super-phosphate fertilizer plants into your water slowly, they would have to
pay for hazardous waste disposal.

I could go on and on. If you want a really good read, check out the Fluoride
Deception.

The history is amazing.

Fluorosis is the moddling of the teeth by fluoride. Fluoride 'works' by
changing the mineral structure of your teeth. The fluoro-apatite is more
resistant to decay than hydroxy-apatite. This is why fluoride toothpaste and
fluoride gels make perfect sense. They work.

When you ingest fluoride over long periods of time, the fluoride accumulates
not just in your teeth, but in all of the places that have a similar chemical
composition to your teeth, namely your bones. If someone's teeth are moddeled
you can be sure their bones are too.

Indeed, the highest concentrations of fluoride found in humans is not in the
bones or the teeth at all, but the bits of calcium in the pineal gland; where
it has been measured in the 10,000ppm range (this is due probably to a really
high blood flow and large relative surface area).

Fluoride is super dirt cheap because it is literally an industrial waste. I
don't want to have to drink it. They fight tooth and nail and call it
conspiracy theorist when we suggest it is an outdated practice.

~~~
beoba
\- "There are a bunch of studies linking IQ drops to fluoride exposure."

By "a bunch" we of course mean "an inconclusive one comparing two Chinese
villages from a couple weeks ago":
<http://ashartus.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/fluoride-and-iq/>

\- "The negative health effects are not hard to find."

Ok, such as? You just rattle off industrial uses and act as though that
affects its usefulness in medicine. (DID YOU KNOW IT WAS USED TO MAKE BOMBS??)

~~~
eof
<http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fluoride+health+effects>

There have been studies coming out of china re: fluoride for a lot longer than
the one that came out a couple weeks ago.

