fayfreethinkers.com

Posted: **Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:27 pm**

Fluoridation Revisited

Was the rush to fluoridate drinking water bad science? What is the current evaluation on dosing water supplies with fluoride?

Posted: **Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:02 pm**

Hogeye wrote:Fluoridation Revisited

Was the rush to fluoridate drinking water bad science?

DAR
No, but the claims of the anti-fluoridators certainly are. This article repeatedly makes all sorts of claims (many of them certainly false) without saying where he got the information. He quotes Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and I suspect he relys upon him for much of his information since he was such a prolific leader in this movement.

You can read a short article about Dr. Yiamouyiannis here.

A very thorough rebuttal to his widely distributed main tract can be read here:

Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet

HOGEYE
What is the current evaluation on dosing water supplies with fluoride?

DAR
I see two separate issues here. The basic science of fluoridating water (is it safe, does it work), and the political/moral issue of medicating the water when not everyone may want it. I am much more sympathetic to the second one.

This is one of these issues I had meant to get around to investigating indepth some day so I am glad you brought it up. I suspected the anti-fluoriders were rife with quackery and with a little reading tonight, even just the above links, my suspicions were confirmed.

Doug, remember when I called you one day and said the Frank Whalen (local radio crackpot) said that the government had all of this super toxic flouride poison on hand and didn't know how to get rid of it so they decided to put in the drinking water? This Murray N. Rothbard fellow passes along this same howler. Not good.

See this well referenced line by line debunk of 20 of the favorite flouride myths here:

Fluoride Facts and Fiction.

Basic summary of the scientific position as given by the government:

Fluoridation Information

* All drinking water naturally contains some fluoride. Community water fluoridation is the process of adjusting the naturally occurring fluoride level to the optimum level for preventing tooth decay.

* Adults, as well as children, benefit from drinking fluoridated water throughout their lives.

* More than half (62%) of the U.S. population live in communities served by fluoridated water supplies.

* Community water fluoridation has the endorsement of every major health organization in the United States and many other countries, as well as every Surgeon General for the past 50 years.

* The concentration of fluoride in community drinking water is controlled within plus or minus 0.1 parts per million and represents no health hazards.

* Every $1 spent on fluoridation saves $120 in dental treatment costs.

SOURCE

D.
.
.

.
.

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:14 pm**

I prefer scientific reasons and citations rather than mere poisoning the well.

Dr. Elise Bassin found in her 1991 study "...for males less than 20 years old, fluoride level in drinking water during growth is associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma..." Here's the PDF.

And here's a synopsis of recent studies with links from Fluoride Foes Win the Year - Scientifically & Politically January 24, 2006. The first three points are political rather than scientific.

4) FAN finds bone cancer study "buried" at Harvard and EWG touches off firestorm:

a) In January 2005, thanks to information from silicofluoride expert Myron Coplan, FAN members obtained copies of key sections of a 2001 Harvard PhD thesis strongly associating fluoride in drinking water to the incidence of osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young males. Dr. Elise Bassin had successfully defended this thesis in 2001. Despite its revelations of a life threatening disease related to low fluoride exposure these findings were not shared by Bassin's thesis advisor with the scientific community, US regulators or the public. This information only came out because FAN made copies of the relevant sections avilable. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ba...

b) Based on Bassin's thesis and other studies, EWG asked the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health to list fluoride in tap water as a carcinogen. http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20050606/i...

c) EWG also petitioned the National Institutes of Environmental Health to investigate the apparent cover-up and misrepresentation of the conclusions of the thesis by Bassin's mentor Chester W. Douglass -- a Harvard Professor and editor of a Colgate newsletter. http://www.ewg.org/issues_content/fluoride/20...

Harvard is investigating . http://www.ewg.org/news/story.php?id=4205

5) Eleven U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unions call for fluoridation moratorium:

In light of the Harvard research linking fluoridation with childhood bone cancer, and in light of many previous studies, eleven U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals employed by the EPA, ask for a fluoridation moratorium and congressional hearings looking into the safety of water fluoridation. In a letter to EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, they also ask for a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for fluoride in drinking water.

The Protect Our Water Alliance (POWA) organized an online petition in support of these federal EPA professionals who are sworn to protect our health: http://www.powalliance.org/petition

The petition has over 9,000 signatures, so far, including 343 Medical, 168 Nurses, 104 Dentists, 18 Registered Dental Hygienists, 538 with higher academic degrees, 40 members of the legal profession, 1 State Senator (Hawaii), the National Toxics Campaign Director for Greenpeace, USA, as well as the officers of many other state environmental organizations.

6) More scientific studies indicate fluoride's dangers at low levels and fluoridation's ineffectiveness :

Erdal S, Buchanan SN. (2005). A quantitative look at fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and intake in children using a health risk assessment approach. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:111-7.

This study, published in Jan '05, provides an analysis of total fluoride intake in children. It finds that some children are ingesting too much fluoride. To quote:

"the findings of this health risk assessment study support concerns that a segment of the infant and child population in the United States may be exposed to amounts of fluoride greater than the optimum level for caries prevention... This raises questions about the continued need for fluoridation in the U.S. municipal water supply to protect against the risk of fluorosis."

CDC (2005). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 54:1-43.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) releases findings of a 1999-2002 national survey showing that 32% of American children now have dental fluorosis, an increase of 9% since the last national survey in 1986-87. See:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss54... and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss54...

Liu JL, et al. (2005). [The dose-effect relationship of water fluoride levels and renal damage in children] Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 34:287-8.

This Chinese study found that children drinking water with > 2 ppm fluoride are at increased risk for kidney disease. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/news/25.h...

Eichmiller et al. (2005) Controlling the fluoride dosage in a patient with compromised salivary function. Journal of the American Dental Association.

"The combination of gastric problems, difficulty in swallowing, leg muscle pain, and pain in the knee and hip joints is a key indicator of fluoride toxicity, and patients using high-concentration home fluoride treatments should be monitored for these symptoms."

Whyte et al. (2005) Skeletal fluorosis and instant tea. American Journal of Medicine.
Woman's bone and joint pain diagnosed as fluoride toxicity in a woman consuming excessive quantities of instant tea.

Komarek et al. (2005). A Bayesian analysis of multivariate doubly-interval-censored dental data. Biostatistics 6:145-55.

This study, from a European team, utilized a large set of dental data to investigate the impact of ingested fluoride (as reflected by the presence/absence of dental fluorosis) on cavity rates. According to the authors:

"Our analysis shows no convincing effect of fluoride-intake on caries development... This agrees with current guidelines for the use of fluoride in caries prevention, where only the topical application (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is considered to be essential."

Mullenix, P.J. (2005) Fluoride Poisoning A Puzzle with Hidden Pieces. International Journal of Environmental Health.

In this article Mullenix reveals hidden industrial studies which indicated fluoride's potential damage to workers which if known would have necessitated reduction of acceptable air concentration levels in the work place. See: http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1104_Mullenix...

See http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health for a comprehensive discussion of fluoride's health effects.

7) Throughout 2005, FAN has kept the NRC panel reviewing the toxicology of fluoride in water (expected to report back in eary 2006) fully informed on the latest scientific findings and revelations:

FAN's submissions have included a thorough analysis of the Bassin thesis as well a review of the other studies which have invesitgated a possible connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/fa...
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/fa...

FAN, EWG and Beyond Pesticides appeal EPA's approval of the use of Sulfuryl Fluoride on food:

FAN, EWG and Beyond Pesticides intervened on EPA's approval of very high fluoride residues on food as a result of approving DowAgroSciences's application for first-use of Sulfuryl Fluoride as a fumigant on food. This includes 900 ppm on powdered eggs! By comparison kids are told to spit out toothpaste containing 1000 ppm fluoride.

FAN is confident that this intervention will lead to an evidentiary hearing in 2006 and thus force fluoride apologists to testify and be cross-examined under oath. This could ahve huge ramifications for water fluroidation because the EPA's health risk is predicated on the dated and scientifically undefendable MCLG for fluroide of 4 ppm. http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/sf.pr...

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:42 pm**

Hogeye wrote:I prefer scientific reasons and citations rather than mere poisoning the well.

DAR
When stuck you frequently resort to a charge of fallacious reasoning. If you are going to do this it would be useful if you would specificaly detail how you believe your claim applies so I can teach you in what way you are mistaken. Not knowing or having any training with regard to the chemistry of flouride you quote this Murray N. Rothbard, a nutbar economist who also doesn't know anything about this either so he blows and goes and relies upon Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, a genuinely certifiable loon whose claims were completely and directly dismantled at link I provided. As usual you don't just have one crack-pot, you stack them. It isn't "poisoning the well" to completely and directly refute the other persons position, it's just good research. Yiamouyiannis claims have been examined and given due scrutiny and they melted upon examination.

Then you treat us to a huge cut and paste from an anti-flouride movement, while avoiding responding to a single point of mine. Boring.

You originally asked two questions:

"Was the rush to fluoridate drinking water bad science?"
"What is the current evaluation on dosing water supplies with fluoride?"

You have your answer in my first response representing the mainstream scientific position, with extensive citation and direct response to the claptrap. If you as usual want to look to the cranks, crack-pots and tin foil hat folks that cherry pick an anomalous study (and frequently just make shit up), then you are going to do so.

That said, there may be legitimate issues of concern. I'll have to look at this bit about it building up and concentrating in places. Also, whether local areas are going to use it not should probably be up to the local areas, although, as happens with so many issues, a few nutbars will throw out fearmongering and crappy science from the "true believers" and the populace will make their decision on less than the best information. Oh well.

D.
----------------------------
"First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine!"
--Your Murray N. Rothbard falling on his face and getting his facts wrong in his very first assertion. Not a good sign. It goes down hill from there.
I actually had more sympathy for the anti-flouride folks BEFORE I read his article.
.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:08 am**

A new report from the Academy of Sciences (which I just accidentally deleted, so I'm going from memory here) indicated that: 1) fluoridation is beneficial if applied topically, but not if ingested; 2) excess fluoride causes bone decalcification; and 3) urban water supplies are testing out at up to 4 times the "beneficial" level.

Previous studies I've read suggested the focus on fluoride was misplaced to begin with - the areas of low incidence of caries that have naturally occuring fluoride in the water also have considerable amounts of calcium and magnesium (Deaf Smith county, TX comes to mind), which are components of tooth and bone and much more likely to be the beneficial factors than a neurotoxin. Since it's been quite a while since I've read them, again I'm going from memory, and am conveying the essence of the studies here, not actual quotes.

Because of the nature of research, researchers frequently find what they are looking for (hypotheses have to be phrased so as to be testible, the tests are restricted by the phrasing - a necessary limitation, but one that needs to be accounted for with other hypotheses). The orginal research was being done in the days when dietary supplementation was considered to be pure quackery, but "magic bullets" were not. Sort of like the current belief in pasteurization of milk (& practically everything else, as far as I can tell) - it was supposed to make milk safe to drink no matter the health of the animal (dear T. Roosevelt didn't want to hurt anybody's bidness). We now know good health of the cow and the cleanliness of the dairy are the only things that matter in safe milk - but it's illegal in every state in the union to commercially sell raw milk (in some states it's illegal period - and in a few states it's illegal for the farmer to GIVE you raw milk) - and people believe this (and the American Dairy Assn loves pasteurization because it extends the shelflife).

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:58 pm**

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote: We now know good health of the cow and the cleanliness of the dairy are the only things that matter in safe milk - but it's illegal in every state in the union to commercially sell raw milk (in some states it's illegal period - and in a few states it's illegal for the farmer to GIVE you raw milk) - and people believe this (and the American Dairy Assn loves pasteurization because it extends the shelflife).

DAR
I grew up on a dairy farm and chugged a lot of raw milk. I thought I would check this claim just for my own interest and found this:

***
State raises barriers
It's legal to sell raw milk or raw organic milk in Arizona with a state permit, according to Dart Easterday, an administrator who oversees dairy licensing for the Arizona Department of Agriculture.

The milk must be certified Grade A raw milk, and it is required to meet the same health standards as pasteurized milk. But to be sold in Arizona legally, raw milk must be produced and bottled in the state. The vast majority of Arizona's dairy farmers are members of the United Dairymen of Arizona, which oversees its members' milk sales and does not allow the sale of raw milk to consumers.

Arizona currently only has one legal raw-milk producer, Meadowayne, which is in Colorado City on Arizona's northwestern line with Utah. It is not a member of the Dairymen.

...snip...

Not 'worth the risk'

Keith Murfield, chief executive of the United Dairymen of Arizona, said individuals have the right to choose to drink raw milk, but his organization has the right not to sell it.

"I just don't see that it's worth the risk to sell raw milk," Murfield said.

Dairy products can be guaranteed to be safe only if they are pasteurized, he said.

According to the FDA, 300 people got sick from eating or drinking raw-milk products in the United States in 2001, and 200 became ill in 2002.

LINK

DAR
There was, or is a new brand of milk being sold by Harp's that is supposed to be more local and natural (no hormones etc) plus you get it in a glass jug which your return for a deposit, a feature which I like. It costs a lot more but I tried it for a while and it definitely tasted good but the darned stuff consistently went bad before I could use it. Like immediately. I tried it several times. So I stopped buying it.

old cow hand,

D.
------------------------
Also this:

Got raw milk?
‘Cow sharers’ find the legal loopholes
By AMANDA PENNELLY Issue date: Fri, Jul 8, 2005

...

"Sally Fallon, an author and raw milk guru in Washington, D.C., believes that eventually retail stores will push for the legalization of raw milk once they realize how much the consumer market is growing. “Cow shares are helping raw milk farms get started, but eventually retailers will figure out what they’re missing,” she said.
Washington State already allows stores to sell raw milk in some of its counties, Pressley said. And that state recently passed a law, effective July 1, that allows for the retail sale of hand-capped milk bottles, which will help smaller farms work toward getting their licenses, he said.
But Paulson said Oregon is still uncertain about licensing raw milk farms. According to him, there were four licensed retail raw milk dairies in Oregon that followed state sanitary and regulatory requirements in the early 1990s.
“In spite of their compliance, two of the four dairies had outbreaks of E. coli, and a few of the cases resulted in hemolytic uremic syndrome, requiring the victims to go on dialysis due to kidney failure,” he said.
But allowing for the sale of raw milk to the general public— whether through cow-share programs or retail stores — is inevitable, according to Mike McAfee, founder of Organic Pastures Dairy. He’s already found a way to get around Oregon’s law on raw milk retail sales, and uses his 320 milking cows to stock shelves over the last year at local Whole Foods Markets and cooperatives with raw milk … for pets. Or at least that’s what the label says."

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=30666
.

.
.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:29 am**

Glad to see my data is outdated - at least sort of. I hope raw milk makes a comeback - in the 1930s and 40s certified raw milk was available everywhere, at about 2 cents a quart more than pasteurized milk. In the 1980s AR still had a few raw-milk dairy providers and ONF carried them, but it was a "grandfathered" situation - only farms who'd been providing raw milk prior to the law were permitted to continue, and as soon as the farm changed hands, they were under the new law. The milk you got at Harp's (also available at ONF) is still pasteurized - pasteurized milk doesn't "turn", it rots - you can't use it in cooking like you can old-fashioned clabber. The only thing I can think of as to why it goes bad so quickly is their refrigerated delivery truck isn't cold enough (or your refrigerator isn't) - or it got too warm between the store and your house. You lose darn near a day of storage for every hour the milk sits at degrees above 40 - or the milk gets above 50 degrees somehow between dairy barn, bottling, loading, unloading, or transporting home. Once milk is above 50 degrees it's a case of use it immediately (drink it or cook with it) - feed it to your animals, whatever - or throw it out, because the bacteria just blossom above 50 degrees and rechilling isn't enough to stop the deterioration.

Does the FDA track how many people get sick from eating dairy products in toto, or is it just tracking raw milk problems. Somehow, 200 (in 2002) out of almost 300 million doesn't sound like a real health threat (especially if it wasn't a major illness (death threat) and the issue is one of the milk getting above 50 degrees in shipping, since it's so easily fixed).

Posted: **Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:16 pm**

Just recently the gummint agreed that Fl exposure for infants is a bad thing, and has ruled that it shouldn't be put in baby formula.

fayfreethinkers.com

Fluoride in Water

Fluoride in Water

Re: Fluoride in Water