Water fluoridation is safe

I'm glad to see Pro has inspired a challenging debate. Note that, based on the resolution, praises of fluoride in tooth prevention are not relevant to this debate. We are only concerned with it's safety, not whether it's benefits outweigh it's risks.To begin, I'll clarify my reasons for mentioning other sources of fluoride that we routinely consume. The health affects of fluoride depend on the total amount we ingest, not the source of the fluoride. The EPA would have to be naive to be unaware that fluoride intake has grown over the last few decades [1]. They can't simply claim ignorance by saying "it's not my job". I believe my point #1 in Round 1 still stands. Regarding Pro's comment about my round 1 statement "Recent medical studies refute the EPA claims", as I said in that round, I will "leave details for later" (see below).To continue with Pro's points, I'll first address fluorosis. Pro references the wikipedia article on this subject which does indeed use the phrase "high" concentrations (of fluoride). But rather than try to figure out what "high" means, I prefer to look at a chart that shows the increase in fluorosis since 1950 (when fluoridation first started):http://www.fluoridealert.org...The chart is important because of the many sources of fluoride intake, and the complexity in gauging total intake. Even if one asserts that fluorosis does not meet the criteria for "unsafe" (which I do not), this is still a clear sign of increased overall fluoride intake. Based on this information, I stand by point #3 from round 1.Now to Pro's arguments on Cancer and studies from pro-fluoride groups in general. It should be pointed out that the studies Pro refers to in round 1 are suspect. Both studies used sodium fluoride in the testing. In fact, most of the chronic testing done on the health affects of fluoridation was done decades ago using sodium fluoride. This is because it was the original compound used in fluoridation. However, not all fluorides are alike. The compounds actually used these days are either sodium fluoride (NaF), fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), or sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) [3]. Of the three, fluorosilicic acid is most commonly used for water fluoridation. This form of fluoride is a by product of phosphate fertilizer production [4]. Note that the original idea for fluoridation of water came from studies of communities that had naturally fluoridated water. [11]Second, there is evidence that federal government organizations such as the NTP can't be trusted in these studies . For example [16]:EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.It's interesting that the EPA uses the following friendlier wording to describe fluoride [2]:Fluoride compounds are salts that form when the element, fluorine, combines with minerals in soil or rocks.Given this information, references to fluoride in this debate should be specific whenever possible. When the term fluoridation is used, we can assume it is one of the three compounds listed above, however sodium fluoride only makes up 10% of fluoridation programs [5]. Note that the above reference also states:Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency have told Masters and Coplan that the EPA has no information on health effects of chronic ingestion of SiF-treated water.SiF is silicofluoride, another name for H2SiF6Given this information, I find Pro's cancer studies in round 2 to be largely irrelevant.In addition, the positive propaganda behind fluoridation has a disturbing history. I'll list just a couple examples:The American Dental Association is paid to endorse fluoride. They also provide grants for studies in support of fluoridation [9]. In fact, Pro's source from round 1, fluorideinfo.org, is a domain owned by Steve Schonfeld, an ADA spokesperson. The union of scientists and workers at the EPA has twice come forward in opposition to water fluoridation: in 1998 and again in 2005. Scientists at the EPA have been targeted for speaking out against fluoridation. They have also been pressured to modify reports to favor fluoridation or ignore ill affects. [7] [8] [10]In 1951, members of the PHS (Public Health Services) used strong tactics to promote fluoridation, such as: [11]If it is a fact that some individuals are against fluoridation, you just have to knock their objections down. The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass it over. 'We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay,' you say, and go on. Bette Hileman, in a 1988 report appearing in Chemical & Engineering News, states [11]For example, Zev Remba, the Washington Bureau editor of AGD Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry, wrote last year that supporters of fluoridation have had an"unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry has lost "its objectivity - the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion.Now, as promised, I will address point #2 from round 1:Dr. Phyllis J. Mullenix began work investigating fluoride in 1987 as Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center. Here studies led to a paper on fluoride neurotoxicity in 1995 [14]. In a letter of response to inquiries regarding fluoridation by U.S. Army Medical Command, Dr. Mullenix responded:In our 1995 paper (2), we reported that brain function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues….. Overall, we concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.It's interesting note that Dr. Mullenix didn't expect to find any significant results from these studies and was, in fact, surprised by the results [15]:Initially, the fluoride study sparked little interest, and in fact we were quite anxious to move on to something academically more exciting. Using an animal model developed for the study of dental fluorosis, we expected rats drinking fluoride-treated water would behave the same as matching controls. They did not. The scientific literature led us to believe that rats would easily tolerate 175 ppm fluoride in their drinking water. They did not. Reports in the literature indicated that fluoride would not cross the blood brain barrier. But it did. Prenatal exposure to fluoride was not supposed to permanently alter behavioral outcome. It did. [1] http://www.fluoridealert.org...[2] http://water.epa.gov...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.cdc.gov...[5] http://www.globalresearch.ca...[6] http://www.fluoridedebate.com...[7] http://www.nteu280.org...[8] http://www.organicconsumers.org...[9] http://www.fluoridedebate.com...[10] http://www.ucsusa.org...[11] http://www.fluoridation.com...[12] http://www.nofluoride.com...[13] http://slweb.org...[14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[15] http://www.fluoridation.com...[16] http://www.fluoridation.com...