Breast milk is no argument against fluoridation

It is sometimes claimed that, as fluoride does not pass readily from the mother to the baby via breast milk, that this is evidence that fluoride is bad and the mother’s body is attempting to protect the baby from it. The argument is a case of comparing apples to oranges.

Today, the mortality rates of infants is dramatically lower in affluent countries than it was historically, because of many medical health improvements over the past century or so. These include, but are not limited to improvements in our understanding of hygiene, disease, physiology and medicine. Vaccination, effective soap and medicine are true modern wonders that we unfortunately take for granted being so detached from the sad history of high infant mortality.

Yet, mother’s milk was as available then as it is today. Sure, breast may be best, but it is not everything. Medical science has improved on this again.

More importantly, the anti-fluoridation advocate making this argument illustrates a lack of understanding of evolution.

Not all people were exposed to environmental fluoride all the time throughout our deep history. Equally, the teeth of our deep ancestors were likely to serve for the better part of their short lives. So there is no evolutionary pressure on the body to expose or protect the baby in relation to fluoride through breast milk. What occurs within breast milk is only the result of what the mother can create, which in turn occurs firstly due to her genetics and then nutrient availability from her diet. The most successful offspring were more likely to live and pass on those favourable genes.

If all people were exposed to high levels of fluoride all the time, but breast milk wasn’t, there would be physiological mechanisms for this, which we could describe. We have such a physiological “love-hate” relationship with sodium chloride (table salt), which the amazing loop of Henle within the kidney manages to keep balanced.

There is no such mechanisms actively regulating fluoride because there is no evolutionary pressure to do so. Milk ducts make milk. Fluoride is not milk. Furthermore, babies do not have teeth and so cannot provide a situation that could allow for evolutionary pressure anyway.

Thus the argument tries to use the mammalian method of feeding young to mean something entirely different, which has nothing to do with the safety or effectiveness of fluoride to improve dental health. It’s like claiming that we cannot swim because we breathe air!

The science is clear that when drinking water is fluoridated to WHO recommended levels, dental health is improved without health risks.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Breast milk is no argument against fluoridation

  1. You are missing the point about fluoridation; excessive atmospheric halogen exposure is competeing with iodine. Without iodine, the physical, mental, and spiritual body is extremely weak. This can be seen in all animals and humans throughout the world now. Numerous heavy metals and plastics proven to be stored in fat. These toxins aren’t a problem until you expose the organism to fluorine, as it slows all detoxification processes. This can be easily seen with the atrocious adverse effects of fluoroquinolone administration (it shuts down methylation so the heavy metals are now not able to be detoxified). I’m just about 100% of user, the resultant problem is metal toxicity. Vaccine toxicity via thimeresol? BS. It’s another hood wink. There’s over 3000ppm of fluorine in the vaccines hid in the excipients. That’s why they are isolating the toxicity testing to ethyl mercury or thineresol (they aren’t getting the entire vaccine). Some manufacturers are getting smart and adding boric acid to them, the main antagonist of fluorine, and aren’t seeing the toxic effects. Hint hint.

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.htm

    The main poison to higher organism health is fluorine, hands down, and just about every joke is being pulled out of the hat to prevent the commoner from finding out.

    Like

    1. Good job in combining so many conspiracy theories into one world view! Try adding contrails and maybe an alien colonisation agenda and then it would be good enough for a bad novel.

      Like

    2. And, just a little pet peeve of mind – “spiritual body”? That’s not only paradoxical, it’s also unsubstantiated, unless you’re referring to the Greek “pneuma” definition. Further, iodine is physical element, which couldn’t impact on the spirit as defined by religion.

      But all of this stuff is goal-post shifting. Look at Australia – with all of it’s capital cities (apart from Brisbane) having access to fluoridated water for decades. No anti-fluoride proponent can explain why Aussie in capital cities are health, intelligent and demonstrating free will, when the anti-f’er keeps telling me that exposure to fluoride leads to cancer, thyroid problems and mind control. The real world proves the anti-f’er wrong.

      Like

  2. I have one question: Should, therefore, a breastfed baby have fluoride drops to ensure good development of teeth?? Up to the introduction of external water?

    Like

    1. Judy, Fluoride is to be used topically, and not eaten. One tube of toothpaste will kill you. Read the label “if more than normally used for brushing is swallowed, contact poison control”. Ask a nutritionist if it has any benefit for the body, it actually damages bones. The small amount in your mouth gets mostly spit out, and if you swallow some of the residual, don’t worry about it. I would not recommend drinking it. Also the reason the FDA does not regulate it is because it is not a food nor a drug, if someone called it a supplement, then it would have to be tested, and it will likely be banned after that.

      Like

  3. Moth I like how you exposed the conspiracy theory lol. I’m against fluoride because it has been shown to cause brain damage, and because the Unites States is one of the only countries left who has not woke up to that fact (ah yes and the Australia that you pointed out). Dentists recommend it for teeth, doctors do not recommend it for health and its not a vitamin. Therefore its good for you if you spit it out. Oh it also causes osteofluorosis.
    here’s a map of who still fluoridates and who doesn’t.
    https://ormustalk.com/forums/topic/the-wide-world-of-fluoride-use/

    Like

    1. Water kills, in the right amount. Vitamin C kills in the right amount. Fluoride exposure can cause brain damage and can kill, in the right amount. You ignored one of my main points- why don’t Aussies in capital cities, after decades of exposure, show an increased rate of brain damage? To ignore dose with anything consumed is to make everything toxic.

      Like

      1. one tube of toothpaste will kill you. Did you see the Harvard study linking it to lower IQ? As much as 10 points. Have you noticed that the countries on the map that do not Fluoridate are the ones with great innovation? U.S.A. imports intelligence now (The CEO of Intel is from India) and our smart people drink bottled water. What has USA or Australia invented lately? 10 IQ points isn’t enough to fail in school, but its enough to not invent anything or think independently.
        You pointed out the conspiracy theory above, but do you deny real scientific studies? Has your government studied it? US has not. There have been just over 50 studies done worldwide, and most of them have been in china and India. by the way India has a lot of natural fluoride and the people living in those areas have cognitive problems. That’s why they have studied it.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

        But lets just say it doesn’t cause brain damage. There is no benefit to drinking it. It only effects your teeth on contact. What benefit do you have from drinking it?

        Like

      2. I’m not repeating myself – I’ve discussed Australian studies and review papers, I’ve discussed IQ and I’ve discussed the Chinese and Indian studies that FAN flap around. They are all under this fluoride section. Many of those papers have poor sample size or/and are not controlled for all sources of fluoride and are radically higher intake amounts compared to the WHO recommended amount.

        When you compare oranges to apples, it’s easy to conclude an elephant.

        You can die from drinking a full bottle of spirits. Obsessing over the tube of toothpaste is silly.

        What has the US or Australia invented recently? Are you even paying attention? I admit that if your “smart people” are drinking bottled water, they mustn’t be very smart – such a waste of money, resources and waste creation. Australia isn’t like that, luckily. Like the US, we pay through taxes for safe tap water and we typically drink it.

        Like

  4. Sorry if you felt I was insulting your island. Also like I said 10 IQ points would hardly make anyone a moron. But while your education rates are increasing, so are the number of people drinking bottled water:
    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6763-bottled-water-consumption-booming-201604190004
    Also, in Israel, they dont use fluoride, and I think you will love this cancer discovery. Seriously, its amazing!
    http://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/israeli-scientists-find-mechanism-that-causes-cancer-cells-to-self-destruct/2017/03/27/
    Please don’t think I was trying to insult you. I’ve always wanted to visit OZ, and I have friends there from online.
    But please don’t tell me you’re smarter than people at Harvard…

    Like

    1. Your example regarding bottled water says that less than a third of Aussies drank a bottle of water within any seven day period. That’s not many Aussies and hardly an example of a dominant source of water. It’s a massive stretch to say that education rates are going because smart people are consuming a bottle of water a week!

      It’s an even more incredible step to conclude that that researchers discovered one mechanism for treating cancer because their intelligence wasn’t impaired by fluoride!

      I’ve spoken about IQ in another topic under this group, as I previously said.

      I don’t need to be smarter than anyone, I only need to be scientifically literate to know that no one study is the final word – it takes a body of evidence. I can’t comment on Harvard study, because I don’t know it. I can say that it hasn’t been significant enough to compel WHO to revise their recommendations downward on water fluoridation.

      Also, Harvard University is in Cambridge, MA, USA.

      Cambridge water is fluoridated to 0.7 mg/L. Need I say more?

      And don’t worry, you can’t offend me about the intelligence of Australians. Enough of them voted to make Abbott PM – there are clearly many idiots among us.

      Like

      1. I’m glad you like science and don’t just follow one single study. I have one where the peer reviews are a page long. I’m sure you know who NCBI is then right?
        If something causes reproductive damage, and we put it in water, then the majority of that water goes down the drain (showers, laundry, washing cars, etc) what will that do to fish? Are fish populations falling? What does fluoride do to reproduction?
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017333/

        I trust medical journals more than the water department who is trying to justify what they do…your link is asking the evil if they’re evil. They cited no peer reviewed research, only government funded organizations who make policies.
        Also the EPA has said good and bad things about fluoride… including that it has caused the most damage to our environment than any other pollutant. yes, pollutant.
        https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/91013HND.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C00000023%5C91013HND.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

        on top of that, the water department you link to is citing OLD information
        http://wakingscience.com/2016/02/fluoride-officially-classified-as-a-neurotoxin-in-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journal/

        Like

      2. (I note that you’ve changed your screen name John R)

        This is why I don’t engage in discussions on NA with climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, anti-fs etc: It’s always moving goal posts, cherry picking and confirmation bias.

        I know that I can’t convince you otherwise and I personally don’t care enough about fluoride to hold an opinion other than that provided by the best of our understanding. I read a great article recently on epistemology being more important than anything with the rise of anti-intellectualism.

        Here’s a couple examples of what I’m talking about.

        You claim that the US and Australia haven’t invented much in a long time. I prove otherwise (at least for Australia). You then claim it’s because bottled water is on the rise.

        <- this is moving the goal posts. I proved your initial conclusion to be wrong, so you readjusted your argument to something else.

        I then point out that the actual amount of bottled water consumption within your article is minimal (i.e. a least one bottle in any given seven day period by just over a quarter of the population). This also doesn’t rule out how much fluoridated water is also being drunk by the same people (likely still a litre or more per day) and do not link them in any way to another of your conclusions – that smart people are primarily drinking bottled water.

        <- this is cherry picking what fits your narrative while ignoring references and data that contradict your conclusion.

        You then talk about researchers in areas without fluoridated water making breakthroughs in cancer research, which is another example of cherry picking, but worse than that, it is in itself is a non-sequitur. If I ignore it being a non-sequitur, it directly contradicts evidence I previously stated where I talk about Australian researchers also undertaking other cancer research.

        Then you bang on about “Harvard research” without providing evidence. This is another fallacy: it is an appeal to authority.

        Further, I pointed out that Harvard University is in Cambridge, MA, USA, where water is fluoridated at a level of 0.7 mg/L, which in itself demonstrates two of your premises are in contraction to one another; that a) Harvard University is an intellectual authority, and b) the innovative and intelligent drink non-fluoridated water.

        In stating that the Cambridge water authority is “evil” you make another fallacy that whatever is claimed by the authority can be dismissed because of the implied premise of their nefarious intentions; it’s an appeal to motives.

        You claim that the authority’s supporting evidence is too old, but then link to an EPA paper nearly 40 years old. You claim to prefer to refer to science literature, but instead refer to an article about a The Lancet’s position. These are yet further examples of contradiction as with those mentioned above, whereby you cherry pick what fits your narrative, but reject contrary evidence on some basis you otherwise accept when it agrees with you.

        This is known as confirmation bias and something we are all inherently drawn to do. I recommend spending some time learning about the techniques of critical thinking and argument structure.

        Now to go a little “sciencey”…

        Firstly, your linked science paper; Effect of duration of fluoride exposure on the reproductive system in male rabbits (2010).

        – any test species has limited (while valuable) application as a comparison to human health. Otherwise a study into the toxicity of chocolate on dogs would conclude that it should not be consumed by humans.

        – the paper itself refers to previous studies into the exposure of fluoride on rodents having contradictory results. Basically they admit that there’s still a lot of unknowns into the health impact on fluoride in rodent diets. At the same time, the authors are very clear in the same introductory paragraph about the known health impact of fluoride intake on humans and what is known to be safe levels. (As I’ve previously mentioned and in the other topics I have made on fluoride in this section, China and India both had various uncontrolled sources or fluoride intake – namely from food grown in fluoride rich soil. This is no where near as regulated as it is in Australia).

        – Group II and III of the rabbits are exposed to sodium fluoride amounting to 20 mg/Kg body weight per day. This is a massive amount of fluoride. Given that the rabbits were between 1.5-2.5 kg, they consumed 30-50 mg of sodium fluoride each day. Looking at fluoride alone, it makes up 45% of the molar mass of Sodium fluoride, thus converting to 13.5-22.5 mg of fluoride per day. To compare to a 70kg Harvard university researcher who diligently drinks 2L of tap water each day; at 0.7 mg/L, they intake 1.4 mg each day, or 0.02 mg/Kg (where the bunnies get 9 mg/Kg of just fluoride each day).

        I repeatedly pointed out that dose is fundamental with anything. Even if the rabbits were a perfect test species for humans (which they are not), comparing 0.02 mg/Kg to 9 mg/Kg intake per day is absurd. To make such a claim is another fallacy; inconsistent comparison.

        Lastly, The Lancet.

        Here’s all they say about it;
        “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations. Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose–response association would be desirable.”

        And to refer to the referenced meta-analysis;
        “RESULTS: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% confidence interval: -0.56, -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.

        “CONCLUSIONS: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.”

        What are high and low exposures? Looking at table one, high exposures groups are characterised by greater than 1.24 mg/L while low exposure groups / reference groups are characterised by ~0.5 mg/L (roughly that fluoridated cities in Australia aim for).

        Further, the authors state;
        “Our review cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, because the actual exposures of the individual children are not known. Misclassification of children in both high- and low-exposure groups may have occurred if the children were drinking water from other sources (e.g., at school or in the field).”

        That is to say, in these studies – all in China or Iran – the children could be exposed to other sources of fluoride that were not measured, thereby potentially undermining the results of the analysis.

        This is why no single study or single review of a group of studies is enough to be a conclusive final word. It’s the body of evidence that builds our confidence in our conclusions.

        Moreover, your article might have looked like the “final nail in the coffin” but when you actually look into the science behind it, if anything, it rates the levels of fluoridation in Australia and the Us as “low” or “reference” levels.

        If you have paid me the kindness of reading through all of this (that took some time to research and write), thank you.

        And to reiterate the point I started with – this is why I don’t like to discuss climate, fluoride, vaccination, whatever, with contrarians any longer. From my experience, they don’t really engage with the information you provide them nor follow up with the evidence you refer to, the shift the goal posts when caught out, when you review a paper and find it lacking / irrelevant to the premise they simply throw out another, they cherry pick, they poison the well, in short they apply the weakest rhetoric, laden with fallacies.

        I try to be driven by the pursuit of knowledge. I know I’m ignorant to a lot in the universe. I am aware of how trivial my opinion is of reality. I am a momentary time traveller who will fade away in less time than a cosmic blink. I care about the health and well being of our species and know enough to know just how dependent we are on this fragile biosphere. I know I am incredibly fortunate to be alive at a time of robust medical science and in a lucky first world country. I endeavour to be frank and honest. I respect and forgive others. I want to use all of this to leave the world a slightly better place than it otherwise could be. This is what drove me to build NewAnthro.

        But the level of dishonesty, fear and hatred I find around me, which translates itself into bigotry, conspiracy ideation, anti-intellectualism and exploitation, disappoints me.

        You can champion reality, health, resilient environments and the scientific method, but to what end, if the contrarian cares more about a favoured conclusion than the strength of the foundations it rests upon?

        Measles might seem trivial when you have only heard about it, but the anti-vax conclusion comes crashing down on their weak foundations when an infant falls sick. The same goes for species loss and climate change.

        I have a follower of this blog with a child who has an intellectual disability who is impossible to get to brush their teeth. Before they fluoridated the local water supply, she did use fluoride tablets to help manager her daughter’s dental health. Equally, good dental hygiene is less common in lower socio-economic areas. Poor dental health will lead to worse outcomes for such people (and likely impact their overall health and thus increasing the likelihood of them becoming a burden on the public health system).

        I write and take comments by people such as yourself seriously because these topics are important. If there is a kernel of truth in your concerns, that equally matters, because it too would lead to poor outcomes for people.. but I just don’t see credible evidence for such concerns.

        Like

  5. “This is why no single study or single review of a group of studies is enough to be a conclusive final word. It’s the body of evidence that builds our confidence in our conclusions.” your own words.
    So we are putting a POISON into our water. millions of tons of it per year, without any conclusive study?
    Let me ask you this: do Europeans have more cavities than Aussies as a result of not putting fluoride in the water?

    You’re the denier. Climate change is real, vaccines are necessary, and fluoride is poison. We are pouring most of it down the drain into the environment, and you keep justifying it. You try to call out my words as fallacy, while saying water is poison that’s really funny. Also I noticed one fact you didn’t touch, is the impact on reproductive health, especially the fish which have dwindling populations, while we put a toxin in their water that harms their ability to reproduce. All in the name of unproven claims on better teeth. Just because someone “endorses” it (ADA) doesn’t make it a fact. Show me where Europe is suffering by not using it, and Ill concede my argument.

    One more thing, a wall of text doesn’t make you right…

    Like

    1. Here we go…

      I should clarify; the quote you’ve mined is part of a response to you – there’s no single study or group of studies that conclusively back up your claim (i.e. that fluoride, at rates used in Australian and US water supplies, is of any harm to populations).

      I’m not a denier, I’m just unconvinced and you’re clearly annoyed that I actually fact checked your claims.

      I’ve pointed out a series of logical fallacies you’ve employed to avoid acknowledgement of erroneous premises and/or conclusions you’ve supplied. You have a need to maintain a favoured conclusion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

      I’ve stated time and time again that DOSE is important with the consumption of anything. Your study you provided on rabbits talked of dose levels 450 times that a Harvard University research would be exposed to. Do you think that 450 times the healthy level of consumption of, say Vitamin C, paracetamol or even water would be healthy??

      THIS is a fallacy of inconsistent comparison used to unfairly reach a WRONG conclusion.

      The Lancet position is also a fair conclusion, which I agree with. But AGAIN dose is important. The reference levels – that is, the low level groups – are the COMPARABLE to those expected in areas of Australia or US with fluoridated water!! The Lancet and the review study BOTH support my conclusion that DOSE is important AND levels of water fluoridation in Australia and US are SAFE levels.

      You say that you don’t accept old data from the Cambridge water authority (in really, I never supplied it as evidence of safety, only as evidence that they fluoridate to counter your claims that 1) smart people are in non-fluoridated areas and 2) Harvard Uni is full of smart people). The data of used is from the 1990’s. Then you supply one from the US EPA from 1980! Incidentally, the Cambridge water authority link to an article from the US EPA dated in 2011, to support their position. YOU’RE wrong again – another example of cherry picking.

      I didn’t touch the fish one because it was ANOTHER fallacy, presented without evidence (you presented evidence against rabbits exposure, not fish). It was actually a couple fallacies rolled into one. Firstly, you talked about the rabbit study and then begged the question about fish. Fish weren’t studied and have a significantly different biology to mammals. Secondly, fish live in bodies of water. Unless you’re a fan of the BS behind homeopathy, diluting fluoride into water ways is going to reduce impact. Third, I’ve already said that the rabbit study exposed the rabbits to 450 times that of a 70 kg human in a fluoridated area. Water levels are insignificant in their purist form (i.e. from the fluoridated water supply direct to the human gut) – once diluted into waterways, they can only go downwards.

      It was never a wall of text, but my attempt to pay you respect in answering your questions thoroughly. Clearly it was too much for you, so please accept this response as a short-hand version of the same points.

      Like

    2. “One more thing,” you say it’s a wall of text – but pick because I didn’t answer everything. Another fallacy.

      I couldn’t adequately reply to so much nonsense in a paragraph.

      And I just realised that I didn’t respond to your request to compare Europe to Australia. Comparing Europe to Australia would introduce too many unknowns. I know of one in Australia, comparing fluoridated ares to non-fluoridated areas and also of a similar study in Ireland, which I discuss here. Rates of caries in both fluoridate and non-fluoridated areas are going down – a result of improving oral hygiene. Yet, rates of caries are still lower again in fluoridated areas when compared to non-fluoridated areas.

      Of course, this hides the real world difference within fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas, where socio-economic and comprehension is obviously heterogeneous.

      But none of this would convince you because you’re so dedicated to the conclusion that you’ve made it your screen name.

      Like

  6. I have no reason to argue with you. But there’s another fallacy you didn’t talk about. its called ad-hominem. Probably because you used it. My links were .gov
    you attacked me instead of presenting evidence.

    If you still wish to disagree then lets agree to disagree. but you may want to google how many municipalities in USA are ending their use of fluoride. People are waking up to reality. You can keep yours if you want, but don’t preach to me why poison is good, while using “water can kill” too as an argument.
    So….agree to disagree?

    Like

    1. Do you understand what an ad-hominem fallacy is? It’s when someone argues that the presenters premises / conclusions are wrong simply because of an unrelated personality flaw (real or imagined) about the person is claimed to exist. For example; “Simon says states that the world is flat. However, it is not flat because Simon is an idiot.”

      Whenever I’ve agreed a fallacy of yours, I’ve explained why it was a fallacy after analysing the premises provided. If I’ve committed an ad-hominem fallacy, please provide evidence. If by this you’re referring comment about your dedication to the conclusion that fluoride is bad, you’re wrong, because how whole discussion is presented as as premises for this conclusion, which I will address below as concisely as possible.

      We must conclude to in disagreement simply because you’ve not provided any compelling evidence.

      Let me summarise;

      1) You claimed that fluoridated water in the US and Aust is resulting in lower IQ and thus an inability to invent or lead scientific research.

      1.a) I gave a list of examples of Australian research and invention as well as improving education rates. 1.b) I provided evidence that Harvard University (that you believe to be an authoritative research body) is in a fluoridated region. 1.c) that you provided an example of research in a non-fluoridated region only supports a conclusion that fluoridation of water supplies at more higher than WHO recommended levels has no impact of research and intelligence.

      2) You claim that smart people are so because they drink bottled water (also used to counter my evidence in 1.a)

      2.a) The evidence you provided stated that the requirements to be included as an individual who drinks bottled water in Australia where those who drank at least 1 bottle per seven days or more. If they drink 2L per day and a bottle is 500 ml, this could be as little as 3.6% of water consumed being non-fluoridated.

      3) You claim that a study into rabbits proves that infertility rates in fish are increasing.

      3.a) I went to good lengths to review this paper and found that the DOSE levels used were 450 times that expected of a 70 kg researcher at Harvard University. 3.b) I pointed out that the biology of fish and mammals are significantly different. 3.c) I pointed out that as minimal as the consumption rate would be in our Harvard researcher, the rate of dilution within catchments would lead to far lower concentrations of fluoride – especially once it reaches the ocean.

      4) You claim that The Lancet has concluded that fluoride is a neurotoxin

      4.a) Again, I took time out not only to read the article, but also the report on The Lancet as well as the reference study – which find a statistically significant relationship between high fluoride exposure (where water concentration levels of fluoride are usually well higher than 1.24 mg/L), but levels comparable to Australian and US fluoridation standards are considered low / reference. 4.b) I highlight that this report thus considers low fluoride levels to be safe – that DOSE size is important.

      5) You claim that the US EPA claims it is the most damaging pollutant.

      5.a) I point out that your report is nearly 40 years old (when you started in the same comment that you don’t like OLD information). 5.b) I provide evidence of the US EPA publishing an article in 2011 in support of water fluoridation.

      6) You state, “Show me where Europe is suffering by not using it, and Ill concede my argument.”

      6.a) I provide evidence from Ireland and Australia which should consistently that children in fluoridated areas has less examples of caries that children in non-fluoridated regions.

      – Whenever I provided these compelling counter-arguments, you ignore my response and move onto another argument instead. You fail to find fault, but try to grasp for something else instead – the is moving goal posts.

      – The above points out a number of cherry picked tidbits of information that, when I explore them further, DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT.

      – When I went to great length to research your two studies, rather than admit that you were wrong or that you had at least failed to recognise dose, you blindly disregard my response as a “wall of text”. This is intellectually dishonest.

      – throughout you employ a series of inconsistent comparisons.

      – Instead of addressing anything I’ve added, you’ve not only moved the goal posts, but tried to target what I left out (eg. the fish).

      – You’ve failed to acknowledge or appreciate dose. Even when I made a very valid comparison (i.e. intake of 450 times the recommended daily dose of Vit C, paracetamol or water) you utterly reject it. You fail to understand what “poison” means.

      – And, ironically, you continually poison the well through your comments about fluoride being a “poison” and water authorities being “evil” etc.

      – Lastly, in your most recent comment you say “people are waking up” and “ending their use of fluoride”. This is another fallacy! Argumentum ad populum. Just because people think ‘A’, doesn’t automatically mean that ‘A’ is true. Maybe people are scared because they don’t look into anti-f claims to the same level as I do. (note: you never presented evidence of this claim, but I don’t care enough and will take it that you’re corrent).

      I previously provided you with an article about measles being on the rise because less people are vaccinating in Europe. Outbreaks have also occurred in the US and Aust for the same reason. I talk to anti-vaxxers and believe me, you could both be using the same script, with a change of nouns. People are scared too about vaccines because of the ill-informed nonsense people like yourself repeat ad nauseam without fact checking or accepting when error is spotted in the arguments being made.

      But this is yet another wall of text that you will ignore.

      On the basis of the information you have provided, you are wrong on every claim being made. You’ve employed an array of fallacies to maintain you position and ignore valid rebuttal. On the basis of all that I have written in my various comments and the evidence found in your own replies, I feel that I have enough evidence to conclude that 1) nothing I can say could convince you otherwise, and 2) you are committed to a favoured conclusion regardless of the evidence. You deny, ignore and repeat.

      Like

  7. Moth, that wasn’t my claim. apparently you don’t know how to click a link. I explained the research, and provided a link. Go argue with them.

    Like

    1. I responded to each of your articles. None of them support your argument – that fluoridated water to any level is dangerous. The Lancet support my claim that US and Aust levels are safe. Likewise the rabbit study. I have gone to great lengths to thoroughly pull apart your premises and address them individually. You’ve failed to provide any evidence to back your position.

      You obviously agree because now you want me to take the fight elsewhere.

      I can’t agree to disagree because you loaded that with a false win for you – that I accept poison being added to drinking water, which I don’t. You’ve failed to demonstrate how US and Aust fluoridated levels are dangerous (and demonstrated that you don’t know what a poison is).

      Like

    1. This is getting boring. Your deliberately being dishonest. How many times do I have to point out DOSE?

      You can’t make a valid argument to support your conclusion so you latch on to ONE point, taken out of context (confounding evidence such as dose and other elements).

      Your dishonest and in ignoring everything I’ve replied, demonstrating endless denial to support your position.

      Like

  8. “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

    Like

  9. yes you tell me I am cherry picking, then cite a water department. What scientific research is done at water departments? As far as I know they are on tight budgets and follow guidelines.
    Also you never addressed what happens to the water after we shower and wash cars and do laundry. It goes back into rivers. Just like pesticides, which are also “safe” but are killing fish. When you combine the effects of year after year, when water evaporates, and fluoride does not, and keeps building up year after year, you begin to understand why it has been banned in most of the world.

    You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that accumulation over time will eventually be unsustainable.
    I also think its funny how you say vitamin c is poison
    http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-c/faq-20058030
    Argue with the Mayo Clinic too…
    You seem like the type to deny manmade climate change. you are contributing to the drop in fish populations.

    Like

    1. Man you’re hard of understanding.

      I did address the fluoride going down drains. I STATED that fluoridated water levels are LOW and when you flush it into waterways it becomes even more diluted!

      Accumulation?? It ends up in the sea. Yes, nutrient loading in estuaries degrades seagrasses – I’ve been part of such research – but you’ve NEVER provided evidence that fluoridation is doing the same thing. You only produced a study on massive doses on rabbits!

      I have done a lot of compiling evidence in this whole section and (I don’t know how many times I’ve pointed this out) I ONLY PROVIDED THE LINK TO THE WATER AUTHORITY AS EVIDENCE THAT CAMBRIDGE FLUORIDE!

      STOP misrepresenting my responses. That’s ANOTHER FALLACY – strawman.

      Unless you learn how construct an argument, acknowledge my responses (not selectively or out of context) and appreciate DOSE, you’ll remain wrong and have proven once again why I no longer debate with anti-science advocates.

      Like

  10. well, I guess you can’t argue with someone who is always right. Although you admit the fluoride ends up in the ocean, and did not dispute the fact that it effects reproduction in fish. I guess maybe you couldn’t argue with that part?

    Maybe you work for and profit from the aluminum industry?
    Or is it the phosphorus fertilizer industry?

    Other countries that have banned or rejected fluoridation include:
    -Austria, where “toxic fluorides” are not added
    -Belgium, which says that those who want fluoride should acquire it themselves
    -Finland, where authorities have noted that there are better ways to stop cavities (through natural methods most likely)
    -Germany
    -Denmark
    -Sweden
    -Norway
    -The Netherlands
    -Hungary
    -Japan
    Israel recently announced a ban as well, as have parts of Africa.
    But you’re smarter than all of these!

    Like

    1. It’s got nothing to do about being “always right”, I simply am not going to accept poor arguments, logical fallacies and disingenuous reasoning. I’ve made a few errors long the way on my site and had readers point this out. I’ve always thanked them and adjusted the article in question (or retracted it) in response. I’m happy to have my errors pointed out as it means that I’m more aware for it.

      You’ve ignored all my rebuttals because you don’t have an answer – you still think you’re right although you’ve provided no strong evidence to support your position. You’re “always right”.

      I explained myself with the fish. I said that you can’t use a rabbit study, where they were exposed to massive doses of fluoride, to fish in the ocean due to the huge differences in exposure to fluoride and different biology. I DID ARGUE THAT! For the record, fluoride makes up about 13 parts per million in average sea water. Stop talking about the fish!

      Now you’ve completely given up on logic. Because you can’t win me over with half-arsed, illogical arguments, I must be on the shill. Just like an anti-vaxxer now.

      But at least we’ve fully exposed you as a conspiracy theorist.

      Did you copy and paste that list from FAN?

      Same begging the question as before with Harvard University, but you had nothing to say when I pointed out that Harvard’s water is fluoridated. PLUS I already answered this – I don’t need to be smarter than anyone. I simply need to know how to reason. And I’ve already caught you out for using this fallacy – argumentum ad populum.

      Anti-vaxxers could say that people are “waking up to the truth” because vaccination rates are stagnating (and measles rates are increasing with it), but the truth is that people have been scared out of vaccination by these anti-science nutters, risking the lives of children. Popularity of an idea has no bearing on how true or false it is.

      You’ve wasted my time.

      I’ll break it down for you.

      – I made this section to answer common anti-fluoride claims.
      – You swanned up thinking you could teach me a thing or you.
      – You presented a few papers – I’ve reviewed them, agreed with them and tried to explain how DON’T reach your conclusion.
      – You have used an endless series of logical fallacies, and I’ve unpicked them and explained how they DON’T help your argument.
      – You’ve simply Gish galloped onto the next point, ignoring my responses, maintaining an air or superiority, if not arrogance (e.g. “But you’re smarter than all of these!” etc).

      You even gave me an example of what you would accept as evidence: “Show me where Europe is suffering by not using it, and Ill concede my argument.”

      And I gave you a link to a former article I wrote, which included Ireland, SHOWING the rates of caries being consitently higher in non-fluoridated areas.

      Did you concede…? Of course not.

      Nothing will change your mind. You’re committed to a conclusion – something I pointed out very early on. You’re a denier of the scientific bases for the safe use of fluoride in the US and Aust.

      I can accept for us to agree to disagree, but on different terms than you suggested. We can agree to disagree on the basis that you’re simply scared of fluoridation and don’t care what else anyone has to say about it. But I couldn’t imagine you accepting that.

      Like

  11. another wall of text. Thanks for agreeing to disagree. I wont change your mind, you wont change mine. It took a long time for many to accept that CO2 is destroying the planet because its good for plants. Im sure it will take people a long time to realize the same thing about fluoride harming our bodies because its good for our teeth.

    Like

    1. It’ll take an extremely long time if the line of evidence you provided is any indication of the quality of argument made by anti-f advocates. You’ll be waiting for some widespread erosion of critical reasoning.

      A few pointers for you, if you plan to whinge about fluoride elsewhere;
      – understanding reality is hard; don’t expect the other to explain complex ideas in two lines
      – try to respect the effort made by others to critically review your arguments (you totally ignored mine, but my “wall of text” is a detailed and engaged response to yours)
      – don’t expect others to be as scientifically illiterate as yourself or to be amazed by your arguments
      – ignoring rebuttal is only an admission of guilt – you couldn’t fault my conclusions, so you moved on to other arguments.
      – if fluoride is harming our health in US and Australian fluoridation areas PROVE it yourself with EVIDENCE from THOSE regions and not other regions with a mix of exposures
      – LEARN about DOSE
      – keep in mind that chlorine is extremely toxic and people like myself chuckle how none of you ever seem to have a problem is it being put into our water

      Okay, make sure your foil hat is on straight and on you go to lose more argument! Enjoy

      Like

  12. I thought you agreed to disagree. Im not even going to bother showing all the fallacy there. Im done, go ahead and have the last word.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s