Fluoridation: Death from the Faucet!
A few fringe activists claim that fluoridation of water carries more danger than benefit.
| Skeptoid #58 July 30, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Today we're going to wrap our big juicy lips around the kitchen faucet, turn on the valve, and fill our bodies with a poisonous chemical placed in our water by the government: fluoride.
Most people understand that fluoridation of water means that fluoride is added by the local municipal water supplier, and that's generally correct. What most people don't know is that in some cases, fluoridation means removing excess fluoride that occurs naturally in the water supply. Fluoride is a natural component of groundwater, and it occurs naturally everywhere in the world, in varying amounts. The process of fluoridation is to adjust the fluoride content of the water to the most healthful level.
So how did fluoridation become a normal part of municipal water supply? It all goes back to an early 20th century dentist named Dr. Frederick McKay, who practiced dentistry in Colorado, and noticed that a lot of his patients seemed to have brown teeth. In Texas, brown teeth were so prevalent that they were simply called "Texas Teeth". Dr. McKay spent 30 years investigating the cause. Why? Because it also turned out that people with Texas Teeth also had extremely low levels of dental decay. If you had brown teeth, you were only 1/3 as likely to have cavities.
Finally, in 1931, it was determined that naturally occurring fluoride in the local drinking water was responsible for both the discoloration and the lack of decay. Texas and Colorado had extremely high levels of natural fluoride, causing the discoloration, a condition now known as dental fluorosis, which is harmless if a tad unattractive. Years of research and testing in different cities and states, conducted by the National Health Service, determined that one part per million was the ideal proportion, giving the same protection from decay, and avoiding the dental fluorosis. Ever since then, it has been the standard practice to regulate fluoride levels in municipal water supplies to one part per million. There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades that one part per million of fluoride is best for health, and exactly zero rigorously conducted scientific trials that have indicated any sign of danger. For all practical purposes, it is an over-and-done-with issue.
And yet, like so many advances in science or medicine, fluoridation is criticized by a small yet vocal fringe group. There is absolutely an anti-fluoridation lobby in this country. Their process is to flood the mass media with as many claims as they can invent: Claims like fluoridation causes cancer or other illnesses; that insufficient research has been done or that there is "scientific controversy" surrounding fluoridation; that fluoride is a dangerous chemical poison; that fluoridation has been banned in Europe; that it eliminates your freedom of choice; or any of a dozen other baseless and untrue statements intended to alarm and frighten the public. Alarming the public is not hard to do. There are many communities in the United States where voters have been compelled to ban fluoridation by this widespread misinformation campaign.
Let's turn our eye onto one such community, Arcata, an idyllic coastal hamlet in northern California, that recently won this battle after a divisive and painful fight in the newspapers and in city hall. A principal champion of the science behind fluoridation is Kevin Hoover, editor of the Arcata Eye newspaper. In answering the flood of anti-fluoridation scare tactics, Hoover said:
There are no known victims. If there was a problem with municipal fluoridation, wouldn't we have at least a few people who showed some signs of harm after 44 years? All the anti-fluoride people could say was that the victims are "undiagnosed," but not why. They produced no victims, just lots of dubious statistics and horror stories with no provenance.
Measure W to ban fluoridation was carefully crafted by the anti-fluoridation lobby to simply require FDA approval of anything added to Arcata's water supply, which sounds reasonable and sounds like a good idea, and a layperson otherwise uninformed would be likely to vote for it. The catch is that the Food & Drug Administration has nothing whatsoever to do with municipal water supplies, and so of course FDA approval would never happen, by law. Measure W was essentially a devious, deceitful trick intended to further the anti-fluoridation lobby's agenda at the expense of the dental health of Arcata's children. Generally, it's this same tactic that has been responsible for most anti-fluoridation measures that have passed in the United States.
How else does the anti-fluoridation lobby go about spreading their misinformation? Generally they distribute an eight page pamphlet written by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, the grandfather of anti-fluoridation activism. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a naturopath who rejected modern medicine, and was the principal originator of the claim that fluoridation causes cancer. He raised his family with an emphasis on a fluoride-free diet to avoid cancer. And, as I'm sure you've guessed, Dr. Yiamouyiannis died of cancer in 2000, which he had refused to treat in accordance with his naturopathic philosophy. His type of cancer has a 95% 5-year survival rate, when properly treated.
Most other experts cited by activists are people like Dr. Hugo Theorell, who did indeed oppose fluoridation in the early days. What they don't tell you is that Dr. Theorell changed his mind and became a supporter after the research was published. They'll often cite Swedish Nobel Prize winner Arvid Carlsson, known for his work with dopamine. He's the only known Nobel Prize winner to oppose fluoridation, but the activists multiply him and frequently say that "dozens" or "many" Nobel Prize winners oppose it. When you can only find one guy who opposes something, and his work is in a completely different field anyway, that's a pretty sad commentary on your position. It's also a case of the exception proving the rule. There are always a few contrarian scientists in every field with opinions opposite from the consensus.
It's also stated that fluoridation adds dangerous levels of lead, arsenic, and mercury to the water. Again, this is simply untrue, and making such a claim is really a form of terrorism. In Arcata, no detectable levels of any of those are found in the fluoridated water. Not just below safe levels, mind you; zero.
You'll also hear the claim that fluoridation has been banned in Europe. This is also completely untrue. In Europe it's more common to fluoridate salt instead of water, thus bringing the same benefits via a different delivery method. As long as you don't look at that fact, the anti-fluoridation people can truthfully say that "Europe rejects fluoridation of water."
Thanks to the efforts of Hoover and all of Arcata's doctors, dentists, educators, social workers and newspapers, Measure W to ban fluoridation was soundly defeated in the election. And it's a good thing, too: according to sources in Arcata, if Measure W had passed, the same people were going to try and ban childhood vaccinations next.
Why do they do it? We can really only speculate. Presumably most of these people are good citizens who love their families and want the best for everyone. I speculate that a lot of them are simply ignorant of the facts, and possibly mistrust of the government or anticorporatism compels them to tend to ignore information from official sources and embrace alternative claims, whatever their source. Hoover gave his own answer to this question in an editorial for the Arcata Eye:
Billion-dollar industries thrive around entirely imaginary “phenomena.” Astrology, numerology, UFOs, alien abductions, Holocaust denial, the face on Mars, “chemtrails,” innumerable media-centered conspiracy theories and fluoride-phobia thrive because they inhabit that magical nexus where paranoia meets superstition – fertile ground for fomenting fear.
The United States Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent fluoridating water saves fifty dollars in dental expenses. If fluoridation is truly just another conspiracy, then at least this is one that saves money.
References
© 2009 Skeptoid.com
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 61 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Jakob,
sure!!!
your really missing the pont boy!!
W H LINDEMANN is Oh so right!
But the so called idiotic skeptics are not prepared to INVESTIGATE!
only DEFENDING!
the skeptics reallly are just parroting each other and the goverment lines.
and Government knows what is good foor us, right? WRONG!
they don't work for us, dear skeptics!
difficult eh?
I am hearing fascist skeptic boots!
get out of here!
Pindar, Hollandf
April 18, 2009 7:28pm
Pindar, you misspelled Holland. And 'point'.
And you just parrot the same lines over and over again.
I'd like to see a list of at least TEN (10) web sites of scientific origin, that say:
"Flouride is harmful." And THEN back it up.
Next, they must not be linked to any conspiracy sites, including non-scientific flouridation sites.
To reiterate: ten websites dedicated to the technological advancement of the human race, stating blatantly that flouridation is harmful, without links or connections to conspiracies.
I will be flexible with how many, just find as many as you can.
Nobody here will accept information that is not backed up with proof; specifically proof from scientific organizations.
Make sure it does not contradict chemical fact, such as 'flouride is an acid with a very low ph' or something silly like that.
Joseph, Norman, OK
May 21, 2009 6:12pm
This article is pure propaganda. Want proof? Pick-up a tube of fluoridated toothpaste. It has a warning not to swallow. The serving size of toothpaste is a pea-sized amount. That has the same amount of fluoride as an 8 ounce glass of water. The average person is supposed to drink 8 glasses of water a day, yet the mandatory warning says not to swallow it.
The naturally occurring fluoride is not the same as the fluoride they add to our water, which is called sodium fluoride. Sodium Fluoride is an industrial waste product from the manufacturing of fertilizer and aluminum. They literally have a net over the smoke stack that catches it. Go to your local hardwarde store and find rat poisoning. Look at the ingrediants. Most will have only one ingrediant: sodium fluoride.
There are many credible studies on the dangers of fluoride. One of them is Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, who showed that fluoride passes the blood-brain barrier. She was fired for her research.
Many of the studies that prove fluoride is beneficial have been shown to be false with freedom of information act inquiries showing that in many cases scientists outright lied.
For more info, read the Fluoride Deception or visit the fluoride action network.
Brock, Long Beach, CA
June 23, 2009 9:17am
Non sequitor much Brock? Well, I will count your claim of propaganda with some hard case of reality.
Just because you are not supposed to swallow one form of fluoride does not mean it carries over to another one.
Besides you are overlooking one thing in your sources analysis. The reason why you are not supposed to swallow the toothpaste is not because of the fluoride in the tooth paste. They do not recommend you swallowing the tooth paste because of the sorbitol, hydrated silica, the PEG-32, the sodium lauryl sulfate, and the cellulose gum in the tooth paste. Any one of those things in the presence of
There you go, the real answer why you are not suppose to swallow toothpaste. Not because of the fluoride, but because of everything else.
Since you are offering medical advice, I want to tell you the following: go to pubmed and type in fluoride. You will get real science and not some anti-government agenda like your sites are promoting.
Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
June 23, 2009 12:31pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Okay, So you find problems with Joseph's sources, saying ridiculous things like Dentistry is not a science, the ADA is not a scientific organization, but you go ahead and use articles from the same non-science organization when it suits your purposes.
Then you quote Scientific American, as though it had some weight in this debate. All the article says is that some are skeptical. Some does not mean a lot of people, like your quote mine tried to imply.
But Joseph was onto something when he decided to throw a ton of sources at you, so I am going to do the same thing.
http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/benefits.htm
http://www.mahalo.com/ Fluoride
http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_2051975-public-health- service-report-fluoride-benefits-risks.htm
http://www.health.state.ny.us/pr evention/dental/fluoridation/benefits.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/article s/mi_m0816/is_1991_Oct/ai_11702716/
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour nal/121364198/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/ed ucational/fluoride_poster_glass.pdf
http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webgli mpse.cgi?ID=1&query=fluoride
Lastly, it does not matter if 2400 people are trying to lobby the govenment to get their way because it just show the weakness of the debate. If the evidence was on your side, you would not need to restort to political pressure to get your way. That proves is that yours is the weak position.
Jakob Ambrose, Holtville
April 18, 2009 7:11am