Water fluoridation is safe

Pro's first source in round 4 is interesting. It's a link to the Tooele County, Utah health department web site. Fluoridation in Utah overall has increased dramatically over the years [1], while the residents of the city of Tooele have continually fought against it [2]. Fluoridation cases like this are good examples of several human psychological behaviors coming into play:Group Think: Fluoridation must be good because everyone's doing it.Appeal to authority: In Tooele City, the question was brought to a council vote by one Dr. Clair Vernon, DDS. Fluoridation proponents then appeal to even higher authorities, such as the ADA, WHO, etc.Complacency: The majority of people will choose not to get involved in these decisions. In the Tooele City case, the two main proponents appear to be Dr. Vernon and Myron Bateman from the County Health Department. In the 2005 city council meeting minutes on fluoridation [1], Mr. Bateman and Dr. Vernon answer questions from concerned citizens:A concerned citizen asked if Mr. Bateman was saying there were no health issues? Mr. Bateman responded that scientific evidence shows that fluoride is safe. She asked if someone drank too much water if it would harm them? Dr. Vernon said you would die of drinking too much water before the fluoride would affect you. Some cities in the United States have been fluoridating their water for 60 years and have not encountered problems. She then asked if you could get stained teeth? Mr. Bateman said if you had 8-10 parts per million you could get stained teeth but they were looking at 1-2 parts per million.After reading our debate here on DDO, it should be clear that the Tooele council responses are very much one-sided. It is telling that the "Pro" side of this debate is almost always either a government employ or someone associated with the ADA, while the "Con" side are everyday citizens.In addition, on the Tooele County web site, one of the first things you read is [3]:Since fluoride is a natural occurring nutrient, giving it a boost in areas where the levels are too low is an added bonus for adults and children as well.A nutrient is a chemical that an organism needs to live and grow or a substance used in an organism's metabolism which must be taken in from its environment.I could find no scientific evidence that fluoride is a nutrient. Where do the major players stand on fluoride as a nutrient? Those in favor are the ADA and the WHO. Those against are the U.S. Public Health Service, EPA, FDA and the National Academy of Sciences. One might pose the question: If there is no evidence fluoride is a nutrient, how do the ADA and WHO make this claim? An even better question might be why do they make such a claim?Regarding whether fluoride is a neurotoxin that affects the brain, Pro's source sites one study done in New Zealand in 1986. I'm unable to refute the details of this study since I'm unable to see them. The only details I can find show that the study seems reasonable on the surface. It was conducted in Christchurch, NZ where, at one time, only part of the city was fluoridated. However, I did find this [4]:The last two studies in New Zealand on dental health (Auckland 2009 and Southland 2005) show that there is no difference in decay rates between children in fluoridated areas and children in non-fluoridated areas. The only difference is that 30 per cent of the children in the fluoridated areas have some form of dental fluorosis whereas only 15 per cent of children in the non-fluoridated areas do.A 2012 Harvard study of children in china showed a correlation between fluoridated water and lower IQ's [5]. This study has an interesting follow on story. This year Wichita, Kansas voted on an initiative to begin fluoridating their water. They rejected the initiative, as they did in 1964 and 1978 [8]. During the Wichita debate, the Harvard study was referenced, but the Harvard researchers communicated that "very high" levels of fluoride where necessary for this link so the study was not applicable to the United States [7]. However, it turns out that what "very high" actually meant was 2.47 mg/l. While it is true that the recommended fluoridation level is only .7 mg/l (it was previously 1.2 mg/l) levels from other sources can increase total intake beyond recommended daily levels [10]. As Dr. Steven Levy, a director of an Iowa fluoride study states [10]:"There's a huge variation in levels of intake," says Levy.If it wasn't for the fact that fluoridation is so common already, how many people who understood the above information would accept water fluoridation as being "safe".Regarding Pro's cancer studies, I again disagree that I conceded the cancer debate. In round 2, I showed why the referenced studies were suspect. In round 3, I indicated there were studies on both sides and provided a source to prove it. But for good measure, I will reference another source that provides a summary of studies from the National Cancer Institute in 1990, the New Jersey Department of Health in 1992, Harvard School of Dental Medicine in 2001, and Harvard University team of scientists in 2006 [11].Now on to the fluorosis issue, I stand by my round 3 argument that more than 4 million people are "unsafe" in regards to fluorosis. Pro argues that natural sources may add to fluorosis, which I concede. But this does not help Pro's position at all. You can't argue to that fluoridation is safe because fluoride comes from other sources.Pro's statement:According to generally accepted scientific knowledge, the ingestion of optimally fluoridated water does not have an adverse effect on bone health.Has no backing and comes from a biased source as I showed above. In researching this subject, I've found that there are plenty of studies on both sides of this debate. It's easy to find studies that correlate fluoridation to issues in bones [11] [10]. And here is another page that has an overview of more than a dozen studies confirming a relationship between fluoridation and hip fractures [12]. [1] http://www.tooelecity.org...[2] http://www.fluoridealert.org...[3] http://www.tooelehealth.org...[4] http://www.stuff.co.nz...[5] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.kansas.com...[8] http://www.kansas.com...[10] http://www.slweb.org...[11] http://www.world-wire.com...[12] http://www.slweb.org...