10 comments on “Anti-Fluoridation is Science Illiteracy

  1. Brian, You are misrepresenting my post. I bring up the point about the studies being in China, which does not have a fluoridation program, not to poison the well, as you suggest, but to raise the issue of relevance – which is the exact issue you also raise. Perhaps you should have quoted the next paragraph, in which I write:

    “So the question is – how do these levels of exposure relate to the amount of fluoride being added to water in the US (because toxicity is always all about dose)? There was a lot of variability across the studies, but generally the high fluoride groups were in the 2-10 mg/L range, while the reference low fluoride groups were in the 0.5-1.0 mg/L range (not including the coal burning studies, which had much higher fluoride levels).”

    So – they looked at studies in countries with very high industrial fluoride exposure, rather than countries with fluoridation programs.

  2. Neurologica wasn’t poisoning the well. Their point was that China isn’t a good place to study the effects of water fluoridation… since it “had a limited fluoridation program for a time, and has had no fluoridation of drinking water since 2002″. That’s a perfectly reasonable argument, and not a logical fallacy.

    That the goal of the authors of the meta-analysis was noble/lofty (i.e. “to bring Chinese-language studies to the attention of those in the English-speaking world”) doesn’t excuse using studies from a population that is inadequate for answering the question at hand.

  3. I apologize. I misunderstood thee context of your comment. I’ll strike out that particular line of the post when I get home.

    Looking at this at a bigger screen now: it’s still not clear to me what the relevancy of China is. Either the doses are comparable, or they’re not. While the paragraph you quoted does question relevancy, the paragraph I quoted doesn’t have any obvious link with the second. It appeared (and appears) to me to be merely a rhetorical dig at the source of the study.

    The point of the study is to compare the effects of fluoridation on IQ: what does it matter if the country has a fluoridation program, or not?

  4. Brian – your last sentence makes no sense. How can you study the effects of fluoridation in a country without fluoridation? These are studies of industrial-level toxic exposure of fluoride (and likely other contaminants), but they were presented as evidence of the dangers of fluoridation. The relevance of pointing this out should be obvious.

  5. Fine: the point of the study is to compare the effects of different doses of fluoride on IQ: what does it matter if the country has a fluoridation program, or not?

    This kind of hair-splitting seems puerile.

  6. It would seem to me that if there were evidence, which indicated to the observers of the study, that an amount of this substance has a detrimental effect on a human or animal, it should be removed from the water table immediately. According to the wikipedia for hexaflourosilicic acid, “The LD50 value of hexafluorosilicic acid is 70 mg/kg.” And according to a Canadian website, hydroflourosilicic acid is coming from, well you can see here: http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/

    Should we not be considering where this chemical is coming from in the first place, and instead of turning a blind eye to the injustice of this industry to the environment, as well as to our own health? When will the compartmentalized perspective meet its end? Even if this may cause a fraction of a percent of any population to experience an effect of lowering the IQ or neural efficacy, it must be removed from our water table immediately!

    And as for the environment, I mean my god; I am a scientific pantheist and this is just awful. I realize that these chemicals have practical applications for making widgets that make your life more convenient and awesome, but do those widgets make you so happy its worth killing the air for animals and people alike?

    Lets grow up and realize we have a higher calling than that. We live in times of change, where the forms to which we are accustomed will no longer grant us the freedom we deserve. We must acquiesce to a balance of industry with our ancestral heritage and persuasion. If we become too distant too quickly, we will destroy ourselves like a child with a loaded gun.

  7. The actual amount of flouride in the water is nowehere near the LD50 amounts.

    I invite you to provide evidence that it is. (or else go away with your nonsense)

  8. Well, one thing that we must recognize is that we are talking about a (semi) lethal dose when we reference the LD50 system. One does not need to have a lethal dose for something like a neurotoxin to have a detrimental effect on a persons brain chemistry or neuronal structure over time.

    Rather than demanding we fluoridate our water–for the children and childlike individuals–to prevent tooth decay, why don’t we wake up and see that we are A) giving our children way too much sugar, and B) that we are putting a carcinogenic chemical into our water to prevent tooth decay, when this stuff can cause fluorosis that damages their teeth anyway.

    Now, even if this chemical were shown not to have the negative effects on the brain and on the environment that it obviously does, what is the point of putting it in the water everywhere? I can see putting it in rural places that have a more prevalent issue with tooth decay, or in inner cities that have a diet of primarily sugar and contrived food-like products, but to administer it everywhere is a mass medication of the population without consent.

    I have searched the CDC’s database for information regarding flouride amounts administered in my area, but there was no data. Then I checked my local consumer confidence reports (in two areas around where I live), which showed that both had different levels. My area has a level of .44-.64 ppm, which is considerably higher than a more rural area with .13-.21 ppm. However, that being a significantly lower level than the standard LD50 does not mean that I am glad that it is in the water. Further, it does not explicitely state whether or not this level is before or after treatment–as in whether this is just the natural amount of fluoride prior to treatment, or post treatment levels, and I am waiting on a call from my local water treatment facility to give me that information. Further, there is no real conclusive way to know how much one is ingesting either through drinking or through brushing, therefore this kind of information is relative and not adequate for discerning real life amounts ingested by individuals.

    Furthermore, if you look into how this chemical is produced, and the difficulty of disposing of it due to its toxicity, it is obvious and well reasoned to recognize why it is put into our drinking water: money. The cost of disposing of fluoride vs the cost of putting it into the drinking water is a no brainer for a government that wants to make money over making sense. And by selling the idea that the costs are outweighed by the rewards, you and many others are duped into believing that this kind of treatment is for your best interest, and the best interest of your children–which you may or may not have.

  9. Well, one thing that we must recognize is that we are talking about a (semi) lethal dose when we reference the LD50 system. One does not need to have a lethal dose for something like a neurotoxin to have a detrimental effect on a persons brain chemistry or neuronal structure over time.

    We seem to be in agreement that your bringing up the LD50 was entirely irrelevant.

    even if this chemical were shown not to have the negative effects on the brain and on the environment that it obviously does

    Nope. Let’s stop the bullshit train right there: there is zero evidence the flouride has any negative effects on the brain and/or environment at the current level found in water.

    Please don’t just make shit up.

    to administer it everywhere is a mass medication of the population without consent.

    /eyeroll

    The cost of disposing of fluoride vs the cost of putting it into the drinking water is a no brainer for a government that wants to make money over making sense.

    This is up there with chemtrails, and 9/11 denialism.

    Look, if you ever have an argument is that things are “obvious” and “a no brainer”, then you have a shitty argument. If it were “obvious”, then there would be no dispute. The fact that you have leapt to this unsupportable conclusions does not make them “obvious”.

    Even if your bullshit conclusions were true, you would still have to explain the reasoning behind getting them. “It’s just obvious” means “I have no idea how I came to this conclusion”.

    You are welcome to continue this discussion, but failing to address the above (i.e. needing evidence to show that flouride causes harm at the current levels in water, and evidence in favour of your conspiracy nonsense) means that your comments won’t leave moderation.

  10. My favourite part of people invested in hyperbolic conspiracy claims is where they demand that you prove their evidence-free claims wrong, and if you refuse to provide rock solid evidence that they’re wrong (which is normally impossible as they prefer to imply, as Mattrick did above, rather than explicitly state things), then you need to stop doing whatever you’re doing.

    In Mattrick’s closing statement of his not-going-to-be-published comment:

    If you think this is an irrational position for me to have, so be it, but if there is nothing you can do but roll your eyes at me, I suggest you consider changing to another website called compartmentalized thought: rudeness applied.

    That which is submitted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

    Calling the fluoridation of the water system “mass medication of the population without consent” is just hyperbolic bullshit, and is the meat-and-potatoes of conspiracy cranks. While one could make the argument that this is ‘mass medication’, in terms of rhetoric it’s entirely an alarmist phrase: it makes teeth healthier. That’s it. Nothing more.

    To childishly demand every piece of trash that gets typed up be dealt with point by point? You don’t get to demand how I spend my time, and I refuse to waste it refuting drivel.

    You want me to respond to your points? Then bring research. To claim that it’s “not possible” to research these areas is to openly declare how little one has looked.

    To declare such on a post that includes a research paper on the topic is just idiotic.

Leave a Reply