Water fluoridation is safe

Pro's formal logic statements try to paint a black-and-white picture of my arguments regarding government and trust. But, I never claimed you can't trust an organization just because they are tied to government. Rather, I showed examples of behavior from pro-fluoride organizations that would cause people to have doubts regarding their stance on fluoridation.Also, Pro's use of the word "attack" here is unwarranted. I merely pointed out that the Tooele county web site called fluoride a nutrient when there is no scientific basis for it.Pro is correct that I didn't provide sources to back up my statements regarding claims of fluoride as a nutrient. I will correct here:Those in favor of fluoride as a nutrient are the ADA [1] and the WHO [2]. Those against are the U.S. Public Health Service [4] , EPA [3] , FDA [4] and the National Academy of Sciences [4]. As a side note, the U.S. Public Health Service once claimed fluoride was a nutrient [5]. I'm no conspiracy theorist. I'm sure these people have our best interests at heart. However, I think this is clear evidence that their exuberance clouds their thinking.Pro claims to have refuted my arguments regarding fluorosis. As stated in round 3, this could only be true if you ignore 4 million people, pretend people don't want white teeth, and ignore the fact that fluorosis of the teeth is an outward sign of the same thing occurring in your bones, and ignore the references to studies I've sourced while discounting evidence I've shown that casts doubt on Pro's sources (see below).Pro again discusses the benefits of fluoridation, which I've already shown is irrelevant to his resolution. Pro also claims that "Fluoride is a naturally occurring element". Fluorine is an element while one type of fluoride, sodium fluoride (NaF) is naturally occurring. However, what we are drinking is most likely fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6).Next Pro uses the Christchurch, NZ study as a reference to refute my claims regarding the Harvard IQ study along with other sources. We could debate back and forth for ages using studies. But lets take a moment to review Pro's sources for studies:fluorideinfo.org - organization tied to the ADAwww.health.gov - division of U.S. Department of Health and Human Serviceswww.cdc.gov - division of Department of Health and Human Serviceswww.tooelehealth.org - Tooele, Utah County Health Department www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov - division of U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesThe only source used that wasn't tied to the either government or the ADA was www.cancer.org. There are many studies that show the negative affects of fluoride:Study from India showing a link between fluoride and intelligence [6].JAMA study done in Utah linking fluoride to increased hip fractures [7].A doctors account summarizing eight studies showing links to increased hip fractures [8].Are there any examples of whistle blowers coming forward from the anti-fluoridation camp? No, there is on the pro-fluoride side [9]. Are there any examples of coercion being used against researchers from the anti-fluoridation camp? No, there is on the pro-fluoride side [10]. In January of 2011, the HHS and the EPA reduced recommended fluoridation levels from 1.2 mg/l to 0.7 mg/l in 2011 due to safety concerns regarding dental fluorosis [11]. It's interesting to compare the EPA announcement to the American Dental Associations [12]:EPA includes this:Prolonged high intake of fluoride, at any age, can result in skeletal fluorosis, a condition which may increase bone brittleness, and in a potential increase in risk of bone fracture. In high-dose cases, severe bone abnormalities can develop, crippling the affected individualThe ADA does not mention anything about bones and says this:Enamel fluorosis is considered a cosmetic condition with no known health effects, appearing primarily in very mild to mild form in the U.S., but it can cause tooth discoloration and pitting in rare, severe cases. Is this a complete breakdown in communications? I doubt it. You simply have individuals who are determined to continue these programs, being convinced that reducing cavities is worth the risk of the long term health affects. One of Pro's statements in this round was:In fact, more than 50 epidemiologic studies in different populations and at different times have failed to demonstrate an association between fluoridation and the risk of cancer.I was able to find a reference to this on the hhs.gov web site [13]. As Pro has stated, this report does state that more than 50 studies show no relationship between fluoridation and cancer (although it does not source them). At the same time, it also states the following regarding dental fluorosis: • instruct children to rinse carefully after brushing and not to swallow fluoride-containing toothpaste • urges consumers and health professionals to become more aware of the fluoride levels in their drinking water • that scientific conferences be held to develop more detailed guidance to the public about what the total level of fluoride exposure should be from all sources • recent U.S. studies that show no clear benefit from high doses of fluoride and, indeed, indicate some increases in non-vertebral fracturesI wonder how many consumers are aware of the this? Note that this study came from the Dept. Of Health and Human Services.That same source states the following regarding cancer:There are about 750 cases of osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer, in Americans each year. Although the number appears to have increased, no association was found to the onset of fluoridation.I find the above statement troubling. Researchers would have to determine where these 750 people lived their whole lives, what the fluoride levels where in the water during those times and how much tap water they consumed, along with determining fluoride levels consumed from other sources. That's an impossible task, yet they claim to have done it. What we know for sure is that fluoride intake is increasing and so are cases of osteosarcoma.Pro tries to show that fluoridation has no affect on bones by referencing a health.gov web page [14]. However, Pro cherry picked his text, as the full paragraph is:There is some suggestion from epidemiological studies that the incidence of certain bone fractures may be greater in some communities with either naturally high or adjusted fluoride levels. However, there are a number of confounding factors that need resolution to determine whether or not an association exists. Additionally, other studies do not show an increase in the incidence of bone fractures; one study provided evidence of a lower incidence of bone fractures in an optimally fluoridated community as compared to a similar community with trace levels of fluoride in the water. Therefore, further research is required.In addition to the sources I gave above, there are other studies that have been done more recently to show a correlation between increases in fluoride intake and hip fractures. [15]. One particular anti-fluoride site has a good summary of evidence relating fluoride to problems with bones, referencing sources from several doctors and organizations [16].Pro's resolution is that fluoridation of water is safe. Given that we all put a high priority on our health, I feel I've given enough evidence to cast serious doubt on that claim. [1] http://www.ada.org...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://www.fluoridation.com...[5] http://www.dentalwatch.org...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://www.fluoridation.com...[10] http://www.fluoridation.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://www.ada.org...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://rense.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...