Water fluoridation is safe

First, given that it's thanksgiving and Pro's round 3 was less than 4000 characters, I'll keep this short.Also, apologies to readers regarding any quotes I used in round 2. Normally I italicize and indent them, so hopefully it's not too confusing.I'll start by reviewing my list of points thus far:1) The EPA does not know for sure what levels of fluoride we consume. 2) Recent medical studies refute the EPA claims3) Given the emphasis placed on aesthetics in relation to tooth care these days, I believe many people would consider visible signs of dental fluorosis as "unsafe".4) Propaganda (the organizations pushing fluoridation can't be trusted)5) The additional danger of using other "fluoride" compounds as substitutes (such as fluorosilicic acid)Regarding point #1, it appears Pro has dropped this argument for now.Regarding point #2 and the study from Dr. Mullenix, Pro says: This study does not show that adding fluoride to drinking water is unsafe.As I said in round 1, the resolution: ""Water fluoridation is safe" carries a high burden". Dr. Mullenix is a trained toxicologist so, in regards to my own health, I'd be concerned with her wording here [1]: every effort we made sank us further into the realization that brain function was impacted by fluoride. In summary, my opinion is that there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit.In addition, Pro errors in attempting to refute this study by claiming the levels of fluoride were too high. As Dr. Mullenix explains [1] These criticisms are without merit because our doses in rats produce a level of fluoride in the plasma equivalent to that found in humans drinking 5- 10 ppm fluoride in water, or humans receiving some treatments for osteoporosis. Regarding cancer studies, I disagree with Pro that I simply stated the studies where irrelevant without refutation, but will leave that to voters to decide. However, there are certainly studies on both sides of the debate regarding cancer as you can read here [4]. Regarding point #3 and fluorosis, I accept Pro's numbers regarding dental fluorosis in age groups 0-49. Now, even if we were to agree that fluorosis must be moderate or severe to be "unsafe", we are still talking about a large number of people. The CDC figures [2] show that 66% of the U.S. population receives fluoridated water. This means that more than 4 million people are "unsafe" due to fluoridation.In addition, fluorosis levels has implications beyond it's affect on teeth. Fluoride embeds itself in bones and, as Dr. Mullenix proved, crosses the blood brain barrier. In fact, studies show a correlation between fluoride and both osteoporosis and skeletal fluorosis [3]Regarding point #4 and the trust factor with pro-fluoride organizations, I have shown in round 2 that there has been coercion, cover ups and interference. To add to that, I'd like to include a bit of history in regards to this subject. Edward Bernays is considered to be a pioneer in the field of propaganda. His book "Propaganda", published in 1928, contains some interesting text [5]:The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.Who is Edward Bernays? His resume includes selling our involvement in WW 1, influencing propaganda techniques in the third reich, the cold war, the selling of tobacco, and of course, the fluoridation campaign [5]. Suffice it to say that, in the 1950's Bernays had his work cut out for him. Fluoride at the time had a nasty reputation, being primarily associated with rat poison [6]. And based on the results, his work was quite effective.Lastly, it appears Pro also dropped point #5 for now.[1] http://www.nofluoride.com...[2] http://www.cdc.gov...[3] http://fluoridation.com...[4] http://www.nteu280.org...[5] http://en.wikiquote.org...[6] http://www.lewrockwell.com...