Youtube scientist C0nc0rdance addresses the pseudo-science against flouridation of drinking water.

[MarkCharles]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by EvolveOrConvolve (a host of the Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience group).

And he does it with REAL science.

Just thought I'd share a video from one of the finest Youtube presenters out there.

[uriel1972]

1. Oh My Lack of God

Are the anti-fluoro people still out there? I thought they would have passed on to new objects of derision by now.

[Odin2005]

2. There are some here on DU!

[Boston_Chemist]

3. What is wrong with plain old water?

Why must it be fluoridated? If people want sparkling teeth, they can go get fluoride treatments at the dentist.

Fluorine is a fairly toxic ion, it has a high affinity for calcium, as expressed in the phenomenal stability of the CaF2 molecule. Interestingly, the ion channels responsible for nerve signalling rely on the Ca(2+) ion for the work it does.

The range of concentrations in which F(-) ion is safe for consumption is quite small, and a reflection of this can be found on the warning found on the containers of fluoridated toothpaste. An issue that no one should ignore is a problem stemming from careless fluoridation, as the possibility of getting an aliquot of *highly* fluoridated water from the municipal water supply is very high. Cases of fluorosis are not unknown (common, actually), and most stem from the poor quality control happening at city level.

Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry, I am an actual chemist, I can say that I am intimately aware of the issues surrounding mixing efficiencies. It is very, very difficult to prove to the FDA that your drug is evenly dispersed in your mixing container, and engineers spend entire careers on this problem alone.

Now, without delving into conspiracy-land, is your dismissiveness towards legitimate concerns actually that informed?

[TZ]

4. So you aren't aware

Of the many many studies that have shown that CAVITY levels have dropped significantly with the fluoridation of water. Frankly I'm quite skeptical of someone who claims to be a scientist but says that fluoridation is done to have "sparkly white teeth". No, that's never been the readon for the practice. And frankly as a biologist in the pharmaceutical industry, I find your arguments to be disingenuous at best because there is a huge difference in the delivery systems you are trying to compare.

[Boston_Chemist]

5. Yes, I am quite aware of those studies.

You can be as rhetorically skeptical as you please, no one will ever stop you from concatenating words in whatever way you please. But you have not, and will not, address the issue of uncontrollability of the dosage of fluoride in municipal water supplies. As I said, mixing is a tricky business, and perhaps you can expound for whomever is reading this as to how uniform mixing is achieved at the city level. Perhaps you can even teach me, but I doubt that very much.

And, while you are at it, could you also explain to all interested as to how the fact that different people are affected differently by the same dosage? There are millions of people exposed to a theoretically uniform concentration of F(-) in the supply (and I do mean theoretically), and each has a somewhat unique sensitivity to this drug.

Another issue, also related to concentration, is that of the non-uniformity of the water supply system, in the regions that are between the households, and the main water reservoirs (where fluoridation occurs). This, like each person's sensitivity, has not been controlled for due to its nearly unsurmountable complexity.

I suppose you can't scramble an omelet without also breaking a few eggs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

And, from a CDC study on the topic (citation taken from the wiki article):
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm

"Enamel Fluorosis

Very mild or greater enamel fluorosis was observed in 23% of persons aged 6--39 years (Table 23, Figure 18). The prevalence of fluorosis was lowest among persons aged 20--39 years (Figure 18). Non-Hispanic blacks had higher proportions of very mild and mild fluorosis than did non-Hispanic white participants (Figure 19). Posterior teeth were more affected by enamel fluorosis than were anterior teeth (Figure 20). A nine percentage point increase in the prevalence of very mild or greater fluorosis was observed among children and adolescents aged 6--19 years when data from 1999--2002 were compared with those from the NIDR 1986--1987 survey of school children (from 22.8% in 1986--1987 to 32% in 1999--2002) (18). "

[MarkCharles]

6. Please don't bother to get all the facts about Dental Fluorosis, nor bother to listen to the ..

video I presented, which actually talks about the intake of too much fluoride from sources, usually toothpaste.

Also, please don't look at the AAPD white paper on this. I wouldn't want you to feel you had to give up your irrational fears and bias.

http://www.aapd.org/publications/brochures/fluorosis.asp

[Boston_Chemist]

7. Information, in brochure format, is a way of spoonfeeding people.

I don't really pay attention to such sources.

These conversations, due to their nature, are to be argued on the basis of primary sources, not redacted ones.

Come on, Mr. Skeptic - lets see if you have some chops for this sort of thing.

[MarkCharles]

8. I get it, you don't argue from epidemiological grounds, you argue based upon

what type of paper and research you have summarized before you.

I take it you are not a dentist, and have never studied this topic in dental school.

You will probably want to assert that publications from the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry are only meant as brochures in favor of the chemical industry.

I see you failed to mention any of your own research into this topic.

We have over a dozen nations who have done research into the topic of fluoride in water, (something that occurs naturally in some drinking water, by the way), and all have concluded that fluoridated water in well-managed public drinking water supplies is advantageous to dental health. Not one nation disagrees with the scientific studies.

If you are a resident of Boston, as your name claims, I suspect you have benefited from that in the MDC water supplied to your home.

I honestly cannot believe any reasonable scientist in the field of chemistry argues that sources such as the AAPD and the CDC are to be distrusted. But then again, a healthy skeptic can argue that the color of the paper upon which the studies are summarized is improper, as you have done here.


Directly from my source op. cit.:


"Most cases of fluorosis are mild and will appear as tiny white specks or streaks that are often unnoticeable. However, in severe cases of enamel fluorosis, the appearance of the teeth is marred by discoloration or brown markings. The enamel may be pitted, rough, and hard to clean.

Q: How does a child get enamel fluorosis?

A: By swallowing too much fluoride for the child's size and weight during the years of tooth development. This can happen in several different ways. First, a child may take more of a fluoride supplement than the amount prescribed. Second, the child may take a fluoride supplement when there is already an optimal amount of fluoride in the drinking water. Third, some children simply like the taste of fluoridated toothpaste. They may use too much toothpaste, then swallow it instead of spitting it out.

Q: How can enamel fluorosis be prevented?

A: Talk to your pediatric dentist as the first step. He or she can tell you how much fluoride is in your drinking water. (Your local water treatment plant is another source of this information.) If you drink well water or bottled water, your pediatric dentist can assist you in getting an analysis of its fluoride content. After you know how much fluoride your child receives, you and your pediatric dentist can decide together whether your child needs a fluoride supplement.

Watch your child's use of fluoridated toothpaste as the second step. A pea-sized amount on the brush is plenty for fluoride protection. Teach your child to spit out the toothpaste, not swallow it, after brushing."

There is no credible study that says fluoridated water causes these RARE and usually MILD conditions.

[Boston_Chemist]

9. Are you really simply cutting and pasting a webpage onto your post?

Is it ok for the population of suffer from an epidemic of dental fluorosis because "most cases are mild"?

Advocating for a treatment against dental caries is not a bad thing, but there is a whole host of documented negative effects, and ethical issues surrounding this matter. It is preferable to read articles, instead of engaging in egregious cut-n-pasting, because then we will then be able to sanely discuss the pros and cons of this matter.

I already mentioned a number of technical issues surrounding the introduction of a drug into the drinking water, and for some reason you have chosen to ignore them. The link you posted is a site where zeroth-order information is provided, as it seems to be geared to assuaging the fears a concerned parent may have, but it has within it indications of the problems that I am alluding to. For instance, it suggests that people ensure that "only a pea-sized amount of toothpaste be used when brushing the teeth," so I ask you: Why is such a toxic substance being included in substances (water, tooth paste) that have privileged routes of entry into the human body? It is 100% likely that a child will take a liking for the sweet, minty toothpaste, thusly increasing his/her chances for low level poisoning with this ion. If it is such a safe substance, why the advice that only a pea-sized amount be used?

Furthermore, and since you raise the topic of epidemiology,
a. The article I posted found that fluorosis is mostly found in areas where the poor and minorities predominate. What's going on there?
b. You claim, via this webpage you seem to like so much, that most cases of dental fluorosis are mild. Without any knowledge of the distribution of the data, statements like these are nearly useless. What is the standard deviation, for instance? What about the outliers, what do their mouths look like?
c. Fluorosis appears to be a symptom of other issues associated with flouride poisoning. I am actually curious about these other issues.

Skepticism is not be a banner under which contrarian positions are shouted down via peer pressure nor intimidation.

[TZ]

19. epidemic of fluorosis?

CDC supported data on this please.

[Boston_Chemist]

22. Read my previous posts.

I posted a CDC study, in fact.

[TZ]

17. I do know a bit about dilutions

And I know one thing that the odds are much higher of someone getting water with LOWER levels of Fluoridation than recommended. Technically you should be arguing agaisnt Chlorination of water which is actually a much more dangerous ion than Fluorine. But you know things like cryptosporidian and other protists in water not chlorinated are a very REAL danger.
The odds of someone getting sick from Fl in the water are much lower than almost any other risk, but like everything in life its possible.
Your arguments strike me as very anti-vaxx like. They argue since harm from vaccines is possible they should not be used.
Well I'm sorry but your risk assessment is flawed. Numerous studies have shown that the benefits from Fluoridation outweigh any risks.
You also seem to be pushing your own paper/agenda here, which wouldn't surprise me. I've met more than a few scientists who like pushing their pet theories no matter how unrealistic they are.

[Boston_Chemist]

23. I was expecting this sort of fallacy, sooner or later.

I am not "anti-Vaxx." Where the hell did you get this idea?

That so-called Youtube scientist, "c0nc0rdance" does this as well, and this is a reason I think that the guy is full of shit. The Vaccination issue is not identical to the Fluoridation issue. In one case you have extensive epidemiological data supporting the notion that the practice is advantageous, and has found to be extremely effective at erradicating nasty diseases such as Polio, smallpox, and others. The Fluoridation issue is very, very different, due to the circumstances surrounding it, the lack of proper epidemiological studies on its effects on aspects of human biochemistry (we are not just teeth, you know), as well as the source itself of the fluoride ion that gets placed in the water supplies.

Fluoride ion is not as specific in its targets as, say, and antigen is. It can't possibly be.

[Boston_Chemist]

11. You don't seem skeptical enough. nt.

[laconicsax]

12. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. n/t

[Boston_Chemist]

13. Government calls for the reduction of fluoride levels by nearly 50%

ABC NEWS. A source fit for this crowd

[laconicsax]

14. Yes, they did. Do you understand their rationale?

I'll give you a hint: it had to do with secondary floride sources.

[Boston_Chemist]

15. Oh, I thought it had to do with the toxicity of the ion itself.

Did you know that it bioaccumulates, much like mercury does?

[laconicsax]

16. Depends on the Mercury.

Elemental mercury passes, as does ethylmercury. Methylmercury accumulates.

Nice diversion though.

[Boston_Chemist]

21. What is it with the english language that makes it so difficult for some to understand it?

Bioaccumulation of a substance in the body need not follow identical pathways for different substances. Surely you understood this from the way the sentence was put together.

Consider Flourine: It is well known to "hypermineralize" calcium rich tissues, such as bones and teeth; symptoms of this happening are skeletal fluorosis and dental fluorosis. Mercury, as I understand it, does not like to combine with calcium very well so it gets deposited in other places, perhaps the CNS.

Am I really dealing with disingenious people here?

[laconicsax]

24. You brought up Mercury. If you don't like the results, you have only yourself to blame. n/t

[Boston_Chemist]

25. Your posts in these threads have a distinctive lack of content in them.

So, I am dealing with mostly ad hominem when dealing with you.

Much like Hg, F(-) bioaccumulates in the human body. Let's walk through this one very carefully:

* "like" indicates an analogous situation, not an identical one. It would therefore be an example of a lack of understanding of English to imply that I thought an identical situation was being encountered. It also makes your paragraph about various organomercury compounds rather unnecessary.

* "bioaccumulates* indicates that the compounds finds regions in the body where it likes to sit. It does not get metabolized away in some fashion. Anyone that has taken at least a semester of biochemistry (have you?) understands that the body has a myriad of cycles, each dealing with a specific task. Sometimes the body is unable to deal with a particular compound, and that compound might then become toxic. For example: Flourine is the most electronegative element, divalent cations form insoluble salts --> CaF2 is a stable, insoluble salt that will remain in place. This destroys your bones with time, due to this "bioaccumulation" of Fluoride in your body. Mercury does not do this, but it also bioaccumulates, and its mechanism is well understood, but I will leave it to you to use your Google-Fu in an effort to self-educate.

The first misunderstanding is inexcusable. The second one is excusable.

[laconicsax]

26. Ooh! Another term you don't seem to know the meaning of.

Mercury doesn't uniformly bioaccumulate. Some does, some doesn't. Using it as an example of a substance which bioaccumulates shows that either you have a thorough lack of understanding of biochemstry, or you were hoping that everyone else does.

Water flouridation has been shown to be safe for decades. Your cited study doesn't show it to be unsafe. You lose.

[Boston_Chemist]

27. There goes your bad English comprehension - again.

It bioaccumulates, no?

And fluoride bioaccumulates as well. And the CDC study I posted earlier (go look for it, if you aren't lazy) found that there are huge levels of fluorosis in the general population. Go read it - the words in it aren't too complicated, and there really isn't a lot of jargon. The only thing stopping you from doing so is likely laziness.

This is like going around in circles, though. I can't comprehend how it is that you consider yourself to be rational - you refuse to look at the data!

Honestly, with responses like yours you'd get laughed right out of seminar in any conference on the topic.

[laconicsax]

29. And how many conferences on water fluoridation are there?

The CDC found that 77% of those aged 6-39 didn't have enamel fluorosis. That's quite the epidemic!

Something the CDC study doesn't recommend is an end to fluoridation. It has to be sad when your own cherry-picked studies don't support you.

[Boston_Chemist]

30. 23% with Fluorosis? More like nearly 40%. Did you even read the CDC study?

And, is 23% an acceptable rate?

Dental fluorosis is a symptom of further poisoning, actually. So the problem isn't merely cosmetic. I am completely befuddled as to why anyone would continue to advocate fluoridation of water. Various European countries have eliminated the practice, there is ample evidence from studies that it damages various organs and tissues in the human body, and no one seems to be willing to acknowledge the source of the Fluoride ion that gets mixed into the water supplies.

People here like to rail against the idiot freepers that continue to vote against their self interest, due to a delusional mindset encouraged by whatever corporate interests appear to be paying for the GOP's bills at the time. This, of course, is an ironic stance in some of you.

[laconicsax]

31. So why do YOU think you're arguing against the consensus?

I know what I think, but I'm curious to hear why you think that the consensus isn't on your side.

[Boston_Chemist]

32. What is the European consensus on Fluoridation?

Really, also tell me why a propaganda item from a government publication (i.e. Fluoridation is on par with vaccination as a triumph of public health) shouldn't be taken at face value.

Apropos to Europe (the following is to the best of my knowledge):

a. Germany forbids it.
b. The Netherlands nixed it not too long ago.
c. Sweden no longer does it.
d. Not done in Scotland.
e. Not done in Ireland.
f. Huge controversy about it in England.
g. France doesn't include it.
h. Belgium, ditto.
i. Luxembourg, the same.
j. Denmark has apparently never fluoridated its water supplies.
k. Norway had a debate on it, and the conclusion was that it shouldb't be done.
l. Finland doesn't do it, either.\
m. Austria, the same.
n. Czech Republic, also.

So, items a-m, above, would give you a pretty good sample size from which to glean some rates of incidence of dental caries. Perhaps you can come up with some information.

My stance? I feel that the consensus is with me, and that advanced nations actually choose to not add drugs to their municipal water supplies.

[laconicsax]

33. And what makes the US different.

If the CDC agrees that fluoridation is a real problem (they don't, but you're welcome to think they do), why do we fluoridate our water?

Is it the political influence of Big Fluorine? Does it have to do with the Illuminati or Lizard People?

Why? You seem to have all the answers, so let's hear them.

[Boston_Chemist]

34. I am not here to educate you or entertain your conspiracy theories. n.t.

[laconicsax]

35. Then why are you here?

So far it seems that all you've done is post questionable content and imply conspiracies.

[Boston_Chemist]

36. You actually appear to be ignoring any and all data.

Why are you here, actually?

Europe seems to think that fluoridation is a really bad idea. I am starting to get the notion that you aren't really smart enough to be a so-called skeptic.

As far as I am personally concerned, your approach is not an honest one. Perhaps spending too much time on DU has taught you some very bad habits that lead to flame wars and troll fests. I refuse to believe that your English is as terrible as you appear to make it, given how (willfully) badly you misinterpret/misread what I post here.

And then you start attacking me, personally, intimating that I have an ulterior agenda, or that I am indulging in conspiracy theories of some sort.

You are welcome to talk about data, studies, and related items, in a polite and gentlemanly manner. If you do not, you are simply a consensus enforcer of the worst sort.

[laconicsax]

37. I see you can't take what you dish out.

Too bad, really.

[Boston_Chemist]

38. It's all good, so long as you stop believing this "Fluoridation is Good" nonsense. n.t.

[laconicsax]

39. You've yet to show that it IS nonsense.

All you've done is post a single study, cite European policy, show a lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved, and make ad hominem remarks.

That's far from convincing. What type of chemistry do you do?

[HuckleB]

40. Hmm.

Uh, hmm.

What is happening to this group?

I yi yi.

And I thought about giving up on the Health forum.

Yeah, that's right. I'm going all logical fallacy on it.

I mean, dude. Duuuu-uuuuude. What about our PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!?????

[laconicsax]

42. Be nice. Our water isn't fluoridated--our PBFs are safe.

(You live in PDX, right?)

[HuckleB]

43. Yup.

But my kid gets a fluoride in tablet form every night, so he is properly indoctrinated!

[Boston_Chemist]

51. You've made some statements in this post.

Can you support them?

Come on, let's see some actual content. Putting actual paragraphs here is risky, as you might make mistakes that could easily get pounced upon. I am interpreting your reluctance to do so as an acknowledgment of your inability to put something coherent together.

[TZ]

18. A chemist not understanding doses?

You know that most scientists now think mercury isn't as toxic as once feared. Especially in small doses. Toxicity of ions doesn't matter in small enough doses. And I highly doubt ANYONE unless they decide to drink the water at a water treatment plant right after treatment is going to get such a large dose.

[Boston_Chemist]

20. Fluorine is not the same as Mercury.

Can you quote any studies of the effects of elevated doses of Fluoride on the human body, excepting 'dental caries'?

Look at PubMed/Google Scholar. Both are pretty good at producing results. You will most likely find that not much has been made definitive in that area.

[Boston_Chemist]

28. A couple of hints for you:

A. Science is not a democracy.
That "MOST" scientists think this or that does not mean that there isn't an alternative to the consensus lurking somewhere. Relying on preponderance of opinion among experts *can* be a reliable way of interpreting nature, but one ought to be ready for surprises. For instance, *MOST* scientists thought that the transmutation of elements was impossible, but then along came the Curies and Lise Meitner, showing that various decay modes would break heavy nuclei down to lighter nuclei. Kind of like a rational version of Alchemy.

B. Scientific results are extremely vulnerable to political meddling.
You read about these problems all the damn time, with alarmed pundits commenting on how Big Pharma has hijacked academic research, or how the Bush administration repeatedly interfered with climate change research to suit this or that corporate interest.

[HuckleB]

41. Pssssssst.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/anti-fluoridation_crankery_how_1960s.php

[laconicsax]

44. You have to love the 2nd comment there! n/t

[HuckleB]

45. It is a beauty! -eom-

[Boston_Chemist]

46. Let me repost that foul-mouthed "thing of beauty":

"Dude, what the fuck? Fluoride? Every time I come here you have some anal probe post up obsessing over some nonsense the rest of the sane world has passed over. Do I need to explain all the reasons why fluoride is harmful? Did you take a science course dumbass? Fluorine is harmful as hell. Try drinking even an ounce of fluoride, then tell me you feel OK. No; you won't. Yeah, of course it will prevent cavities. It also prevents brain growth and health. Jesus, drink a gallon of bleach and you probably won't have a cavity, but you might have some other issues, lol. You seriously believe all you're years writing essays for comfortable professors means anything. Real life counts more than your stupid ass lab job. go outside right now and drink a gallon of sewer water, tell me that shit is healthy. If you won't, you expose yourself as a hippocrite. Look around your body. There are shit chemicals all around us and your shill ass just sits here and acts fussy and condessending. D you realize your cover is practically blown? I can only imagine what your opulent ass looks like sitting at the keyboard with your cheetos. You probably also have Dasani water by you because you don't have the balls to drink government subsidized tap water. That tells me all I need to know about you, ORAC. (B-ORAC). ... Peace."

Is this what passes of skepticism among you?

Are you guys really trolling websites with these well-prepared hit jobs on honest inquisitiveness?

[laconicsax]

47. Wooosh!

The point seems to have flown over your head. That's ok though, you're an intelligent individual. You'll get it eventually.

[Boston_Chemist]

49. And, again with your posts that lack any content.

Are you here as a simple consensus enforcer?

[laconicsax]

50. Of course I am. What else would I be doing in a skeptics group?

[Boston_Chemist]

52. Yes, what are you doing in a skeptics group?

Please elaborate.

[Boston_Chemist]

48. Pro-Fluoridation crankery is also an issue.

As I was saying in my previous posts in this theme, there is plenty of science to parse on this topic. This is an interesting theme, and I feel that it should be considered in its totality.

This means:

A. An analysis of policies concerning water fluoridation in other countries.
B. The ethic of fluoridation.
C. The soundness of the science that led to fluoridation in the 1960s.
D. The financial incentives for fluoridation in the USA.

If you look into A, you can find a way to obtain immensely valuable epidemiological data concerning the effectiveness of fluoridation at producing a statistically significant reduction on the incidence of dental caries in the population. I posted, above, a long-ish list of European countries that do not fluoridate (Sweden, France, Germany, Norway, etc.), and which have well established medical institutions that should track this topic. Any real skeptic (starting to think that this excludes you guys) would take it upon him/herself to examine this angle, and arrive at the proper conclusions.

Considering B is the realm of lawyers. I am not an ethicist, but I think that personal choice can be ultimately destructive. For instance, it may be your personal choice to ignore the massive evidence that HIV causes AIDS, but such a stance would have apalling consequences. You might also choose to to avoid vaccinations for your child, but that would cause an increased chance for that child to fall ill with a number of things. Personally, I do not buy the various ethical complaints against Fluoridation, as one could come up with easy counterarguments that illustrate beautifully the need to use medicine as a tool of governance.

I don't think that the human body was as well understood in the 1960s as it is now. And any analysis of the initial decisions for fluoridation ought to be performed in the context that existed when it was made, in the 1960s. Does anyone here really have any insight into this? From my personal experience in this thread, no. All I see here are derisive remarks, and borderline insulting stances. I am truly curious about this aspect of the problem, because it exists in the framework of the Tuskegee syphillis experiments, and other poorly thought out schemes.

Concerning financial incentives for fluoridation. Anyone here would agree that the US government is uniquely beholden to lobbying concerns for anything it does. What industry benefits from the addition of fluoride to the municipal water supplies? An honest understanding of this matter must take this aspect into consideration.

Enough with the name-calling already.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

53. Locking

This thread has veered away from its original topic and outside of this group's SoP. Discussion of the issues is okay; discussions of another poster's intelligence, method or intent is not.

SoP:
"Discuss issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society. Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner."