Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows (Newsweek)
I know those so much as questioning the practice and efficacy of fluoridating water have been generally painted as "anti-science" quacks on DU's (and most "pro-science"
forums (some examples/commenters are on record here, here, and here), but looks like the facts, while there all along, are finally being more readily recognized:
Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows (Newsweek)
If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.
Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.
...
The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.
The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either. The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).
“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed."
(more at the link)
If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.
Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.
...
The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.
The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either. The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).
“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed."
(more at the link)
I have a feeling those in the allegedly "pro-science" crowd will pass this off in true third stage of truth-form ("as being self-evident"
, but it would be nice to see a mea culpa of sorts for all the scorn and ridicule heaped on those who had opposed the practice on scientific (and even ethical) grounds. I suppose there's the fear that that sort of admission/concession would cast doubt on some of science's other hot-button issues and whether or not they are truly settled enough to hold such ironclad positions, and it might even be hard to tease them apart since those on the self-anointed "pro-science" side have done so much to lump them all together, but that shouldn't stop an issue this important that effects/involves such a vast amount of people from being widely read and disseminated (especially considering how gleefully condescending some would have been - DUers included - if the report had come out in favor of water fluoridation).
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
1.
If you dissolve a salt in water, it's components split up. They are not "forms of sodium". It could be almost any other group-1 or group-2 metal that bonds with the fluorine or fluorine-compound. Once you have put them in water, there is next to no difference between MgF2 and NaF.
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid
" In the liquid phase, the oxonium ions react reversibly with the hexafluoridosilicate(1? ions, producing water and various protonated silicon complexes. These complexes undergo decomposition reversibly, producing a small concentration of hydrogen fluoride. The result is a complex mixture containing water, hydrogen fluoride, tetrafluorosilane, and other related species, all in dynamic equilibrium."
Translation: It becomes harmless when it reacts with water.
3.
"In veterinary practice, external application of sodium hexafluorosilicate combats lice and mosquitoes on cattle, sheep, swine, and poultry,"
It reacts with the moisture on the skin, forming a thin layer of very strong acid on the skin. And this acid kills the lice. (Not poison here!)
"oral administration combats roundworms and possibly whipworms in swine "
I don't know the process here, but as these are rather simple organisms, I guess it could act as poison. The human body on the other hand needs a steady fluorine-supply for hardening its bones and teeth (which the worms don't have...) and is therefore equipped to handle fluorine.
4.
"Thus, there's no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it,"
A text from 2001, I see. That might explain it. Recent dental research has shown that our teeth do not exclusively rely on toothpaste for getting their share of fluorine. Saliva is also a major source of fluorine to harden teeth.
Last edited Fri Jul 3, 2015, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)
1. Who spoke of "forms of sodium"? I spoke of "forms of fluoride." I've no idea what you're going on about here.
Edited to add: I do see where I said "forms of sodium"... I had meant to say "forms of fluoride." I still do not know what you're going on about though.
2. Thanks for your translation. Let's investigate that "harmless" complex mixture...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_tetrafluoride
Tetrafluorosilane is the chemical compound with the formula SiF4.... SiF4 is a by-product of the production of phosphate fertilizers, resulting from the attack of HF (derived from fluorapatite protonolysis) on silicates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride
Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical compound with the chemical formula HF. This colorless gas or liquid is the principal industrial source of fluorine, often in the aqueous form as hydrofluoric acid, and thus is the precursor to many important compounds including pharmaceuticals and polymers (e.g. Teflon). HF is widely used in the petrochemical industry and is a component of many superacids... Hydrogen fluoride is a highly dangerous gas, forming corrosive and penetrating hydrofluoric acid upon contact with living tissue. The gas can also cause blindness by rapid destruction of the corneas.
Those components (and vague "related species"
don't sound very appetizing to me. It doesn't sound very natural to me, though in your initial post you tried to equate these manufactured compounds with simple naturally-occurring "mineral salts." Now you're trying to convince me that they're harmless. Should I just take your word for it? Maybe I should ask Donald Rumsfeld -- due to his intervention, the "trusted" FDA finally approved aspartame, despite 15 years of prior disapproval. Trusted doctors prescribed thalidomide to pregnant women. Trust Monsanto that GMOs are safe! So much for trust.
3. Let's see... it reacts with moisture to form very strong acid -- strong enough to kill lice. What does it do to your liver, I wonder? What is the cumulative effect of steady doses in water, in food, of this acid over the course of 60 years? Should I take your word for it that the human body is equipped to handle ingesting this "very strong acid"? Then you say that "well, whipworms don't have bones or teeth, so it could be a poison for them. But we have bones/teeth, so therefore we're equipped to handle fluorine (no matter how it's manufactured)." LOL
4. No one is disputing that saliva contains natural fluorine. Is it your contention that saliva needs a helping hand from toxic industrial byproducts? You poo-poo research from this century? Exactly what was the research from the 1930-1940s when fluoridation of drinking water began?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_sally_st_080121_1945_human_experimen.htm
In the early 1900’s, brown and yellow discolored, but decay resistant, teeth were prevalent in healthier, wealthier U.S. populations drinking and irrigating their crops with naturally calcium-fluoridated water.
Researchers discovered fluoride was the tooth discoloring culprit and mistakenly thought fluoride was also the cavity-fighting hero – unaware that calcium was required to grow sound dentition. And also unaware of Dentist Weston Price’s extensive research published in 1939 showing that without fluoride, healthier populations had healthier teeth because of good diets.
Public health officials, so sure sodium fluoride safely benefited children’s teeth, had no misgivings about carrying out this very unusual experiment without first doing animal studies, without informed consent and without thought or interest about how sodium fluoride could afflict adults.
Mistakenly assuming all fluorides are the same, in 1945, sodium fluoride, waste products from industries such as Alcoa Aluminum Company (not natural calcium-fluoride), was added to Newburgh NY’s water supply at about one milligram fluoride per liter of water. Kingston NY, the control city for comparison purposes, was left fluoride-free.
Kingston and Newburgh are thirty-five miles apart on the Hudson River in New York State and in 1940 had populations of 31,956 and 28,817, respectively. In Newburgh, 500 children were examined after ten years and 405 in Kingston. Adults were never tested.
Although planned to last ten years, due to political pressure, the Newburgh/Kingston study was declared a success after five years which caused many U.S. cities to start fluoridation prematurely.
Researchers discovered fluoride was the tooth discoloring culprit and mistakenly thought fluoride was also the cavity-fighting hero – unaware that calcium was required to grow sound dentition. And also unaware of Dentist Weston Price’s extensive research published in 1939 showing that without fluoride, healthier populations had healthier teeth because of good diets.
Public health officials, so sure sodium fluoride safely benefited children’s teeth, had no misgivings about carrying out this very unusual experiment without first doing animal studies, without informed consent and without thought or interest about how sodium fluoride could afflict adults.
Mistakenly assuming all fluorides are the same, in 1945, sodium fluoride, waste products from industries such as Alcoa Aluminum Company (not natural calcium-fluoride), was added to Newburgh NY’s water supply at about one milligram fluoride per liter of water. Kingston NY, the control city for comparison purposes, was left fluoride-free.
Kingston and Newburgh are thirty-five miles apart on the Hudson River in New York State and in 1940 had populations of 31,956 and 28,817, respectively. In Newburgh, 500 children were examined after ten years and 405 in Kingston. Adults were never tested.
Although planned to last ten years, due to political pressure, the Newburgh/Kingston study was declared a success after five years which caused many U.S. cities to start fluoridation prematurely.
http://planet.infowars.com/health/how-fluoride-was-sold-to-america-and-how-we-bought-it
EPA official and chemist, Dr. J. William Hirzy, expressed his view on fluoride at a Senate subcommittee hearing in 2000, which was contrary to very agency he worked for. This is what Hirzy had to say: “If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff “.
Under the EPA’s own regulatory guidelines fluoride is listed as a chemical neurotoxin with substantial health risks. Sodium silicofluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid are the hazardous chemicals that make up the fluoridation process and are waste products originally created by the aluminum and fertilizer industries.
In 1931 the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) under the direction of Andrew Mellon (The Mellon Institute) conducted fluoridation tests through the Public Health Service (PHS) by dentist H. Trendley Dean, who coincidentally, was the first director of the National Institute of Dental Research. Dean found that as fluoride levels began to rise, so did percentages of dental fluorosis. Dean claimed his test results lowered cavities even though it was just the opposite. Dean promoted the falsified findings and eventually became known as the “father of fluoridation”. Andrew Mellon, who held considerable authority as acting U.S. Treasurer, put pressure on (PHS) to push the fraudulent tooth decay agenda.
By 1939 ALCOA was already facing major lawsuits regarding fluoride emissions from factories. Gerald Cox, a Mellon industry researcher who was also financed by ALCOA, began selling the public on the idea of compulsory fluoridation. ALCOA knowingly used false dental research to cover up fluoride pollution and avoid damage claims. In 1946 Oscar Ewing was chief counsel for ALCOA and through a devil’s bargain headed up the Federal Security Agency (FSA) taking charge over (PHS). This was how fluoride was sold. Soon cities across the United States purchased the fluoridated water and began dripping it into the water supply under the propaganda campaigns directed by (PHS) and the American Dental Association (ADA). To this day, the ADA and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still defend the fluoride test results that were fabricated over sixty five years ago.
Under the EPA’s own regulatory guidelines fluoride is listed as a chemical neurotoxin with substantial health risks. Sodium silicofluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid are the hazardous chemicals that make up the fluoridation process and are waste products originally created by the aluminum and fertilizer industries.
In 1931 the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) under the direction of Andrew Mellon (The Mellon Institute) conducted fluoridation tests through the Public Health Service (PHS) by dentist H. Trendley Dean, who coincidentally, was the first director of the National Institute of Dental Research. Dean found that as fluoride levels began to rise, so did percentages of dental fluorosis. Dean claimed his test results lowered cavities even though it was just the opposite. Dean promoted the falsified findings and eventually became known as the “father of fluoridation”. Andrew Mellon, who held considerable authority as acting U.S. Treasurer, put pressure on (PHS) to push the fraudulent tooth decay agenda.
By 1939 ALCOA was already facing major lawsuits regarding fluoride emissions from factories. Gerald Cox, a Mellon industry researcher who was also financed by ALCOA, began selling the public on the idea of compulsory fluoridation. ALCOA knowingly used false dental research to cover up fluoride pollution and avoid damage claims. In 1946 Oscar Ewing was chief counsel for ALCOA and through a devil’s bargain headed up the Federal Security Agency (FSA) taking charge over (PHS). This was how fluoride was sold. Soon cities across the United States purchased the fluoridated water and began dripping it into the water supply under the propaganda campaigns directed by (PHS) and the American Dental Association (ADA). To this day, the ADA and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still defend the fluoride test results that were fabricated over sixty five years ago.
More good info on the history of fluoridation...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/07/donald-w-miller-jr-md/alcoa-socialism/
