Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Study: Fluoridation Not Particularly Effective

I've wrote before here that I'm not particularly worried about the health effects of fluoridated water. We've had it in Eureka since the '60s and I can't point to any specific harm myself or others have suffered from. Still, I've become an anti- fluoride zealot over the last few years after seeing how many were scared to death of it and how many others wanted to force it upon them.

This article in Newsweek cites recent studies that show no significant, if any, benefit from fluoridated water. I'm not really comfortable citing "scientific studies" as it seems most nowadays are based on ideology as opposed to objective facts and reasoning. I have no idea whether the the Cochrane Collaboration they quote is objective, but from the way the story reads, they don't sound anti- fluoride.

Even "Dr." Steve Slott shows up in the comments. That says something. He seems to spend his days surfing the web to rebut arguments against fluoride with fluoride industry talking points. He regularly shows up when fluoride comes up in the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat, pretty much just saying any evidence the antis have is bogus, then regurgitating the same things we hear time and again about how great fluoride is.

Him and I went back and forth one time at length. I'd ask him, for instance, to rebut the statement that the difference between fluoridated water and non- fluoridated is maybe 5 instead of 6 cavities a year. He ignored that, just getting hysterical. He finally went on some rant about kids in non- fluoridated areas losing all their teeth and facing major costs for dental surgery. When I pointed out that is rare, but even happens in fluoridated areas, he gave up.

As far as I'm concerned, Dr. Slott is reason enough to be leery of fluoridated water. 

11 Comments:

At 11:41 AM, Blogger MOLA:42 said...

Lies have many versions: The Truth has but one.

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

Perhaps, but people can also see the truth in different ways: a glass half empty or a glass half full, if you will.

 
At 12:21 PM, Blogger MOLA:42 said...

And that, Mr. Mangles, is called "spin."

 
At 12:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is one case where the anti-crowd isn't anti-science. There's little evidence that suggests fluoridation is of significant benefit. There is ample evidence it poses issues for babies and children, who tend to be over-fluoridated from food sources, let alone mouth wash.

The practice continues simply because it seems like a good idea, like it should be making a difference, and it doesn't cost much, so they continue the pointless practice. Humans do a lot of things every day that don't work, but they continue to do them out of habit.

In short, if you have kids, and your water is fluoridated, buy bottled water. The one exception is if you're managing to only feed them fresh food (e.g., not processed) because otherwise they're already getting their fill of flouride.

 
At 1:05 PM, Anonymous Toothless by 33? said...

All of my grandparents were denture wearers by the time they were in their mid to later 30's. My grandfathers WWII enlistment papers listed -Prosthesis: Dentures. He was only 33.
Both of my folks made it to their 70's with all but one of their teeth. I've made it into my late 30's with just minor dental cavities. Flouride works, and works great. That being said, I believe that nowadays too much is being added. Once upon a time my water didn't stink so much of it, but still had it in it.

 
At 2:24 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"This is one case where the anti-crowd isn't anti-science."

Ever since I started following the issue, I've never come up with an empirical reason for the division among people on fluoride. I suppose that should be no surprise, as we don't all think alike, lol.

But I noticed early on a rather odd line up of bedfellows. In the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat I noticed a couple guys in comments to stories strongly supporting gun rights. Then, switch to fluoride and they're yelling at the antis, "there you guys go again". You'd think they'd be more consistent in fear of government.

On The Left, I'd see the anti- gun guys and gals- that I would think fair to say are "big government"- saying they didn't think government should be able to mass medicate and certainly shouldn't be able to adulterate the water supply. Hmmm???

Seemed strange, and I wondered if the division was more of libertarian vs authoritarian where libertarian leaning lefties were opposed and authoritarian righties supported fluoridation. Not sure that works, though.

I came up with another angle that I haven't really thought through. It's not perfect, for sure:

Business and anti- business. Those who are suspicious or down right hostile to business- generally the Left- would be more likely to oppose fluoride because it's linked to the fluoride industry.

Those who are more supportive of business would support fluoridation because they have more faith in business.

Again, not sure that really makes sense, but we see it in other issues: Anti- gmo has its roots in anti- business sentiment. Global warming and anti- drilling has its roots in anti- business sentiment. That might have a lot to do with people's perspectives, but it's certainly not 100% accurate.

For instance, we see Believers in global warming like Kevin Hoover who opposed the last local GMO ordinance- both pro and anti business sentiments. I'm sure there are others, but I wonder if business attitude is a big source of the division.

 
At 2:28 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

" Humans do a lot of things every day that don't work, but they continue to do them out of habit."

I think that has a lot to do with acceptance, or more properly, lack of concern about fluoride. I was speaking to the Mayor last year and somehow I got on the subject of fluoride. I did a short rant about it. He stood there with his eyes about to roll into the back of his head. He obviously wasn't interested and didn't want to go there. I'm sure most are the same.

Years ago I brought it up to my sister in law. She said she liked fluoride because "...my kids don't get cavities". She never considered her kids brush their teeth at least once a day and don't eat all kinds of candy and sugary drinks. Good enough for her to think it's because of fluoride.

 
At 2:35 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

" Flouride works, and works great."

Even opponents concede fluoride works when applied topically. In other words, directly to the teeth. The only benefit from ingesting it is some might stick to your teeth when you drink a glass of water. Of course, as the article pointed out, fluoride wasn't available in toothpastes when water fluoridation started. Now it is.

I simply can't accept that your grandparent's bad dental health was because they didn't have fluoridated water. If that were the case, pretty much everybody's grandparents wouldn't have any teeth since they didn't have fluoridated water, either. I hardly think that's evident.

Your relatively good dental condition is likely because of your own dental hygiene, along with the presence of fluoride in most toothpastes and mouthwashes available today which, btw, treats teeth topically. You don't drink or eat the stuff.

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

" There is ample evidence it poses issues for babies and children, who tend to be over-fluoridated from food sources, let alone mouth wash."

I can't help but wonder, of all the kids that get fluorosis, if it's because they're eating toothpaste?

I recall when I was real young, getting our first flavored toothpastes. I recall being was mint and the other orange flavored. I distinctly remember squeezing out a bunch of it and eating it because it tasted good- kinda like candy. Back then toothpaste wasn't fluoridated, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of real young kids eat the stuff today just as I did.

 
At 6:09 AM, Blogger Chris from Eureka said...

Even if you accept the notion that fluoridated water is a benefit for teeth, the dosage is uncontrolled. Not every person would require the same amount of fluoride, especially when you consider the very young. Some people drink more water than others. As someone wrote here already, the only scientifically-proven benefit for fluoride is as a topical treatment to the teeth. Most potable drinking water gets thrown out into the environment--onto the grass, down the drain, down the gutter. Thus, this chemical becomes a toxic waste. There is no benefit for teeth when fluoride is ingested. This is not an essential nutrient for the human body. Plus, the fluoride that is put into drinking water--sodium silicofluoride--is the industrial form of fluoride, a by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and not the pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. Municipalties (like Eureka and Arcata) that fluoridate would do better for their constituents to spend the money and time and personnel on early childhood dental hygiene campaigns, even free to low-cost tooth-paste, rather than put a hazardous waste into their drinking water, their environment, even into their own bodies.

 
At 6:50 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"...the dosage is uncontrolled."

Yep. By putting it in the water supply there's really no way to get away from it. You only need it on your teeth, yet when the public water supply is fluoridated, you're pretty much stuck with eating, drinking, bathing and watering your garden with it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home