Re-inform me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe we have the same problems that this report sited, now that it is 20 years later... Fluoride in water has been tested and tested and tested for 20 years since this brief article and we've made advances in the science since, and in the recommended doses both in water and out of water...e.g. in toothpaste and supplements. What's the point of posting an archaic health problem if we have all but defeated it?

Too much fluoride is bad for your teeth...ok... so we've known that for more than a decade. But NO fluoride is devastating to your teeth. Learn what you're drinking and learn what you're brushing with and what you're supplementing with and you won't have a problem... unless you just don't care.
Bottom line, Fluoride will not F*#$ you up, ignorance and carelessness will F*#$ you up.

"impurifying our precious bodily fluids"

Ripper: A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.
Mandrake: Jack... Jack, listen, tell me, ah... when did you first become, well, develop this theory.
Ripper: Well, I ah, I-I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AUGUST 9, 2007: Over 600 Professionals Call for an End to Fluoridation of Drinking Water

An historic moment in the battle against water fluoridation

http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html

I'll point out first that any article from a website that is ALL FOR or ALL AGAINST -=anything=- is just not worth reading. I can pick and choose articles from legit scientific journals to add up to mean just about whatever I want. It simply requires NOT citing all the oppositional articles that are published. Piece of Cake. I would recommend avoiding all such sites en masse. What you really should do is use resources such as pubmed.com and other real scientific article sources to generate opinions on such topics. Sites that are ALL one way are so obviously agenda-driven that it is not worth listening to their opinions. And that goes for ALL such articles.

In my personal opinion on this particular question, my best wish is that people would get the fluoride they need by their own means... e.g. toothpaste or other such methods, so that fluoridating water is no longer even a decent option.

Added edit: 600 "professionals" is sadly an extremely small number. Especially when you see who are considered "professionals." With EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of this sort of argument method, you can find a HUGE number of "professionals" who don't know crap about what they're reporting, or who have no real experience beyond hobby. They can call any crackpot MS or even Ph.D. an "expert" even if that MS or Ph.D. is in a totally unrelated topic.

ha, nice cop out. you asked a question, I provided a reasoned response backed up by factual evidence. You come back with a weak, not very well thought-out rebuttal for remaining close minded. yeah, all those sites that are totally 100% against lead, asbestos, or tobacco (for health reasons) should not be listened to. why ? cause they are 100% against something. illogical arguement not very well thought out. try again.
oh yeah, here's an interesting tid bit for ya.

the same guy, Dr. Robert Kehoe, whose research in the 40's & 50's touted the safety of lead in our gasoline, was also the same guy whose research promoted the use of industrialized fluoride in our water as safe.

Again, Qruel, I support removing fluoride from water by replacing such supplements by other more personally responsible means. But I'm a scientist and by default a skeptic, so I don't buy arguments from websites that only state one side of the argument. And when it comes to commercially relevant issues such as this, I'm particularly weary of anyone who says they have a monopoly on the truth. I just don't buy that level of simplicity. Biology is just not that simple and anyone who says it is is selling something.
-up-vote for good discussion.

Bottom line is that you can call it a cop-out all you want, but when it comes to any scientific question, I will NEVER trust a website that only sites evidence on one side of any debated issue no matter what. That is not science. It is propaganda. If you think you have a decent argument, show me DATA that supports your argument and specifically disproves opposing positions... that means SHOWING and disproving alternative data or alternative interpretations of data. It also means submitting to the fact that your interpretation might be wrong. If you cannot consider that possibility, you are NOT a scientist.

is this what you are looking for when you say "show me the data?

1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe

2) Harvard Study: Fluoridation associated with bone cancer in boys

3) Too much fluoride can damage the developing brain

4) Infant fluoride exposure linked to permanent tooth discoloration

5) Kidney patients at risk of chronic fluoride poisoning

6) Cornell scientist diagnoses fluoride poisoning in horses drinking fluoridated water

7) Fluoride exposure linked to kidney damage in children

Water fluoridation linked to higher blood lead levels in children from old homes

9) Dental fluorosis linked to tooth decay & psychological stress

10) Water fluoridation & the “Precautionary Principle”

detailed info viewable at http://www.fluorideaction.net/top-10.htm

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Not even out of the queue, and I can tell this is going to be a hum-dinger.

edit: As it stands, it still looks like you're citing a website that only considers data that supports its agenda... and as i said, links to only certain sources means only certain considerations... in other words, ignoring alternative arguments. Linking to arguments from one particular [political] site just doesn't cut it for scientific evidence. www.flruorideaction.net has an agenda. try pubmed.com...which has NO agenda... take some time and see what the WORLD thinks... I'm not trying to be bitter or mean, I'm just trying to point you in the way of what current science really thinks on the matter. Pubmed supports all recent publications and can steer anyones study on any matter closer to what might be the real truth. You might be right, but if you are, this is the first place to look, not some website that selectively chooses its sources to suit its agenda.

•First: Don't let other people tell you what to think or read, read and think and let the data lead you to what you hypothesize is the truth.
•Second: Never assume that your hypothesis is true no matter what. Instead, assume you are only slightly closer to the truth than you were previously. Also assume that you might be entirely wrong.

I'd love to continue this further tonight, but it is profoundly late here and I have to work like a dog tomorrow, so I hope someone at least debates this further while I'm gone. hehe. fun fun.

*politics
and I'd be tented to +eia too

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by looris.

btw it's spelled "fuck", not "f*#$"

Sometimes, Doc_M, controversies really only have one side to them, with the "other side" being upheld by ill-informed or even delusional people. Kinda like the Flat Earth Society.

Yes, some people really do believe that the world is flat, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

Just because a website "promotes its own agenda" (thus discrediting it with you) does not mean the factual evidence backed up with studies, research, and experiments are suddenly null and void. Sure, if the studies were faked or no sources were cited I would be suspicious. That's not the case, though.

The most damning part of this news clip is when it points out that the EPA scientists THEMSELVES are dissenting against the EPA's ruling. It's a giant cue to even the most uninformed person to sit up and take notice that an agency's own employees are saying "whoa whoa there that ain't right." I'm no water expert, but those EPA scientists are, and would know better than me whether or not fluoride in my drinking water is good or bad.

It's sorta like the dissenting NASA engineers that were forced by ignorant upper management (unaware of the dangers of cold temperatures and O-Rings) to sign off on the Challenger space shuttle launch. And look how great that turned out.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fluoride, news, health hazzard' to 'fluoride, news, health hazard' - edited by calvados

Prayer is plenty enough to prevent tooth decay. Prayer works for cancer prevention too. Just try it! *sarcasm of course*

Meanwhile those touting how horrible fluoride is for them.. walk off to McDonalds for lunch and bang down 2 BigMacs and a 48oz Coke and not think twice about the consequences.

Don't like fluoride in your water? Dig a well. Collect water from roof runoff.

Its all relative. While you moan and groan about some infinitesimal chance for disease X as a result of fluoride. People are suffering from serious life threatening water borne illness in MUCH greater numbers, especially in other nations.

More people die from influenza the common cold and even starvation, each year HERE in the US, than any possible fluoride related/identified disease or disorder.

Its all about perspective.

Sure, we can strive towards curing or saving people from some disease that affects .00002% of the population. OR, we can work together to target problems that can result in the saving, or improvement, of thousands or millions of lives.

i forgot about prayer being the best anti caivty fighting tool one can use. thanks.
as for your other comments, they are quite simply, uneducated. try reading some of the material (and links) provided and you will see that fluoride can indeed fuck you up, seriously, with all kinds of nurological problems in addition to lots of other serious health issues.

It's not about freaks like me calling foul.
It's really about cash money.

Fluoride is big business and we've invested in the myth of Fluoride ever since the Manhattan project. Why the manhattan project? Well, besides Fluoride being a byproduct of aluminum smelting, not to mention teflon/and florocarbons(refrigeration medium) which are now: HCFCs or HFCs. Fluoride was also a large byproduct of uranium enrichment.

I challenge anyone to find a website which says: "Fluoride is safe." It's a moot point.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

I am removing this sift from the Science channel, as this video does not well represent the scientific process by which we should all hope issues such as the use of fluoride would be given.

In addition, for the record, Qruel, when you are citing evidence in an argument, do not choose headlines written that misrepresent the studies that are being cited. Doc_M's criticism of your citing a biased website rather than the actual studies in question was very legitimate, and appropriate in this particular case. If you want to cite studies, cite studies, don't quote somebody "quoting" from a study. This is a good reason for using primary documents in a scientific debate. For example, the first study, represented as "1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe"...well, I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe), and guess what it reads? It says that high doses of fluoride have been proven to cause health problems (which had already been well-documented), but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.

And for a bit of further reading, check out Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993), which has such little gems as : "More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relation between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and human cancer. With minor exceptions, these studies used the method of geographic or temporal comparisons of fluoridation status and regional cancer rates. There is no consistent observation of increased cancer risk with drinking-water fluoridation; most of the studies show no association. The large number of epidemiological studies combined with their lack of positive findings implies that if any link exists, it must be very weak."

A very simple but interesting exercise might be to ask your local dentist the next time you go for a checkup what he or she thinks of fluoride.

REMBAR

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.

Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.

I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.

So are you are saying the original site I quoted cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? You and Doc both make the blanket statement that if the site is biased, then it cannot be trusted. If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

here is a much better (graphic) run down of the daily items we consume that has fluoride in them

http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htm

Qruel, I don't have the time to write a proper response at the moment, but for starters: I am serious when I repeat the need to cite primary documents. You did this exactly once in your response. The other arguments are based on summaries of the report not from the primary source. I suggest you read carefully the report that the website you quote is citing, because it does not read as the summary claims, especially in full context.

First you insult Qruel's judgement for putting this in the science channel. Then you insult his method of argument.

You have yet to prove any interest in water fluorization, but every indication of defending bad science.

I'm at a loss to defend Rembar's statements. It can only seem like he wants to stop the discussion.

A week late and no one's listening, but Rembar and I support the idea of siting original research rather than web-washed re-sitation of selected data for the purpose of defending a conclusion rather than defending a hypothesis. Continuing to site a web-site that is so plainly agenda-driven just doesn't win the argument.

Personally I don't think water fluoridation is necessary anymore and ought to be stopped if only to save money. At one point it may have helped people with dental health, but now basically every tooth-paste has enough to maintain said health... and too much is not good.

The argument got dirty simply because the accusation is so hyped that it is sold as something akin to heroine rather than a very marginal health risk. Similar mistakes have been made (and aggravated by media hype) such as the "dangers" of several of our sugar substitutes. Yes, they are not ideal and are not as healthy as advertised, but the studies that site them as dangerous do so with the disclaimer that enormous doses were used in the studies in animal models. Enormous doses are not relevant to normal human consumption unless you drink a 24 of diet Coke every day.

Same goes for fluoride. A bit each day is good. A crap-ton of it each day is not good. That about sums up the whole freaking debate. If it's in your toothpaste, you don't need it in your water. If it's in your water, you don't need it in your toothpaste. If it's in both, don't worry about it. The worry alone is ironically more dangerous to your health [via immune suppression] than the fluorine. lol.

If people didn't get so hyped and angry about such things, it'd be much easier to study them honestly and discover the truth. It only muddies the waters to make it a fiery "it'll kill us all and it's all your fault" argument. That doesn't help anyone. I wish the media and politicians would just keep they're dang head out of science. Leave us alone and let us do our fargin jobs.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter qruel.