The actualy naysayers of fluoridated water are the ones regurgitating the same criticisms over and over, even though they have been handily answered/debunked.
Technically, knowing that elephants live in Africa involves scientific research, ie. hypothesis, data, results.
So, are you agreeing that some claims may not require rigorous testing to disprove them?
How many scientific unions take up your side, as opposed to the scientists who disagree with your side? Are they all on your side?
the nutjob in this thread doesn't believe almost every official organization and en y that has posted a statement regarding the benefits of fluoridated water.
you got me. RIF failure. I admit it.These guys are for, idiot.
RIF failure yet again.
here's a few, along with a few organizations that oppose:
Statements against
Since 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters' union has expressed concerns about fluoride. In 2005, eleven EPA employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation programs across the USA and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. [39]
In 1992, speaking on the Canadian television program Marketplace, former EPA scientist Robert Carton claimed that "fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century." The practice was described as the "longest running public health controversy in North America" in the broadcast. [40]
In addition, over 3,038 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online pe ion to Congress.[41] The pe ion signers express concern for vulnerable groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function," who they believe may already be overdosing on fluoride.[41] Another concern that the pe ion signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion."[41] The pe ion was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network.[42][43][44][45]
Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the aforementioned report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards. Dr. Limeback is an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto. He detailed his concerns in an April 2000 letter led, "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water".[46]
In a presentation to the California Assembly Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Richard Foulkes, M.D., former special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia, revealed:
The [water fluoridation] studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were "selling," were either omitted or declared to be "bad science." The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self-interest of professional elites. Some of the basic "facts" presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity. We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced.[47]A 2001 study found that "fluoride, particularly in toothpastes, is a very important preventive agent against dental caries," but added that "additional fluoride to that currently available in toothpaste does not appear to be benefiting the teeth of the majority of people."[48]
On April 15, 2008, the United States National Kidney Foundation (NKF) updated their position on fluoridation for the first time since 1981.[49] Formerly an endorser of water fluoridation, the group is now neutral on the practice. The report states, “Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the report in brief of the NRC [21] and the Kidney Health Australia position paper." [50] Calling for additional research, the foundation's current position paper states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend fluoride-free drinking water for patients with renal disease.[51]
The International Chiropractor's Association opposes mass water fluoridation, considering it "possibly harmful and deprivation of the rights of citizens to be free from unwelcome mass medication."[52]
In the United States, the Sierra Club opposes mandatory water fluoridation. Some reasons cited include possible adverse health effects, harm to the environment, and risks involving sensitive populations.[53] In 2006, the Massachusetts legislature decided not to consider a bill that would have mandated water fluoridation throughout the state, because of concerns about health effects.[54]
this is a statement of the NTEU's position and fight to stop floridation.
Fluoride and Professional Ethics As that battle was raging, another one was in the making.
While EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint. He said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement that offended his sense of professional ethics. The statement was to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky teeth" (as he put it) i.e., severe dental fluorosis. It was OK, EPA said, because that condition was only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.
We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a 1986 lawsuit filed against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The more union scientists looked into the fluoride issue, the darker it got.
For example, we uncovered a letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water telling a citizen that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid to fluoridate water supplies as "an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized. . ." In other words, this stuff that would be considered a pollutant if it got into the air or dumped into a river, is OK as long as it is dumped straight into a drinking water reservoir. The solution to pollution is dilution, according to this official. Thus EPA turns a toxic waste whose disposal would cost the fertilizer industry many millions of dollars into a pure profit item for industry worth many millions of dollars.
In May, 1992, EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, who also was our local union's Treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the fluoride cancer risk issue. This occurred following publication in 1991 of a National Toxicology Program bioassay of sodium fluoride that showed male rats got bone cancer after dosing with fluoride at levels only about one hundred-fold greater than the public receives. The judge who heard the lawsuit brought against EPA over the firing made the finding that EPA fired the toxicologist over his fluoride work, and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. He won his lawsuit and was put back on the payroll at EPA in 1994, with back pay and a $50,000 damage award, but only after the Agency was forced to do so by the Secretary of Labor and public embarrassment.
In 1997, the union was asked to write a support letter, outlining our past involvement with the fluoride issue, for Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a neurotoxicologist, who was suing her former employer for firing her because she published a paper on the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride. This we did. That letter came to the attention of some California citizens. They then asked the union to endorse the Californians For Safe Drinking Water ballot initiative aiming to keep fluoride out of that State's water supplies. Before calling for a vote of its members on this request, the union arranged a seminar by Prof. Paul Connett of St. Lawrence University and Dr. Bob Carton, our former Local President, covering toxicity data published in the mid and late 1990's. Based on the seminar and the preponderance of other adverse information on fluoride of which we had become aware since 1985, we voted unanimously to endorse the California initiative.
We published a White Paper in May 1999 on the subject of fluoride toxicity and water fluoridation that is now on the Internet. Two scientists from the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, who happen also to be union officers, sent a memo to EPA's Children's Health Protection work group on neurotoxicity hazards that could be experienced by children from fluoride, based on recent studies (never receiving the courtesy of an acknowledgment of that memo). We have asked EPA to supply non-fluoridated water to its Headquarters employees, and we have been responding to inquiries from the public, press and government officials who want to know about the union's stand on this issue.
We also worked through 1999 and into 2000 with Congressional Committees as they began to inquire into this issue.
In June 2000, the union was invited to testify before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water. In our testimony we called attention to the vast amount of adverse information on fluoridation that has ac ulated since Congress last studied the issue and called for a national moratorium on the practice pending anepidemiology study. The epidemiology study would use childhood dental fluorosis as the index of exposure and behavioral problems and bone pathology as the effects of concern. We also called for an independent review of cancer slides from the 1991 National Toxicology Program bioassay on sodium fluoride, for chronic toxicity testing of hydrofluosilicic acid, and for a full Congressional hearing on fluoridation. Citizen groups around the country also are pe ioningCongress for a hearing, the last previous one having been held in 1977.
and try this:
WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS
OPPOSES FLUORIDATION
"Why EPA Headquarters' Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation."
The following do ents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.
The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.
Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.
We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.\1
Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature do enting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.
In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers \2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers \3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.
Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others \4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.
In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China\5,\6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.
Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke\7 has shown that fluoride ac ulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston \8.
From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.
We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. 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\9 . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Do entation is available on request.
The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.
Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 \14. Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. \15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.
Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Ins ute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.
John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is led, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.
Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health \19, \20, \21. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.
In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.
So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.
Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.
We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.
The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry\24. This do ent was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.
the silence is golden.
Suck my crackpot, es.
This do ent was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Parker, that's not the same issue.
came from this article:
WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS
OPPOSES FLUORIDATION.
they openly state that our water reseviors are being used as a dump for toxic waste which is what Ive been saying all along.
That's not the same as fluoridation in water. We know there is a pollution problem.
The whole letter talks about fluoridation. Why is the summary talking about something the letter never addresses, especially given its length?
Please show something in that article talking about general pollution of water supply.
WC, you havent been listening. They reference phosphate fertilizer industry, which is exactly where our fluoride comes from.
If that's the best you have, then we need to take you off to the loonie bin.
I suppose you're against making natural gas from sewer waste also.
EPA scientists aren't good enough for you then? Doctors arent good enough? Nobel Prize Winners? How about the PHDs and DDSs? Minister of Health of BC?
You are absolutely right WC...we are all looney
No one's debating that there are some people that argue your point Parker. What we're asking is whether the MAJORITY of scientists are on your side. It seems that there are at least as many people who argue that flouridation has little to no negative side effects, and/or confers positive benefits.
Are you implying that there aren't recognizable/reputable names that oppose your viewpoint?EPA scientists aren't good enough for you then? Doctors arent good enough? Nobel Prize Winners? How about the PHDs and DDSs? Minister of Health of BC?
You are absolutely right WC...we are all looney
LNG, I have been called a complete crackpot for even hinting at the same thing these scientists have stated here. Not by you, although you pushed the conspiracy nut angle pretty heavy.
Now you admit that this view is not limited to nuts and crackpots?
Now you admit that there is a reasonable debate going on here?
I think the majority dont oppose fluoridation, however, I think the majority of people dont question the prevailing paradigm without cause, and so that doesnt say much IMO.
WC, remember this oldie but goodie?
Bad news: when confronted with facts, people ignore them
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...stPop_Emailed1
To be honest, I don't really bother to investigate; I've got other things on my plate. If you feel it's important, kudos to you. However, I'd say if you do think it's important, you should probably take the time to actually research it, and not just post ideas and expect others to do your work for you. I was more annoyed with your poor argumenting form.
Sure, there are some instances where the majority of scientists get things wrong. Galileo was an example of someone proving the majority wrong.
However, in order to do so, you really need a smoking gun. Look at Einstein; he had hard evidence, data, etc etc to back his stuff up, and performed empirical tests to measure the data, which confirmed his theories.
Have the scientists who opposed flouridation been able to provide this smoking gun yet? It seems they haven't.
Suck my crackpot, es.
This do ent was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.
So far, Hirzy seems to be a sincere chemist.John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is led, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.
I don't understand his need to point out Colquhoun who points have been previously debunked years before Hirzy prepared this statement.
That makes two of us. This was floating around that thread and I didnt bother digging it out until today...I didnt want to bother doing the search.
Its actually not that important, but I have informed myself on the issue, and I know where I stand: its an unnecessary practice.
The reason these scientists havent been able to stop the practice is IMO, and as I have said before, the fertilzer and aluminum industries are avoiding pollution disposal costs, and Im sure the govt sees this as a way to avoid 1. people getting sick and 2. industry collapsing under the weight of expensive disposal.
no way.
it was important enough for you to make a thread on it, talk out of your ass and post a few jpegs along the way for pages on pagesIts actually not that important, but I have informed myself on the issue, and I know where I stand: its an unnecessary practice.
what makes you think the industry has been collapsing for the last 40 years under the weight of expensive disposal?The reason these scientists havent been able to stop the practice is IMO, and as I have said before, the fertilzer and aluminum industries are avoiding pollution disposal costs, and Im sure the govt sees this as a way to avoid 1. people getting sick and 2. industry collapsing under the weight of expensive disposal.
My point is Address the EPA. Hold them accountable. If the facts are on your side and EPA refuses to budge, then you have a case the the news-media would love to get hold of. I see this as another scare tactic. Maybe you should follow the money and see who gets rich if these scares work.EPA scientists aren't good enough for you then? Doctors arent good enough? Nobel Prize Winners? How about the PHDs and DDSs? Minister of Health of BC?
You are absolutely right WC...we are all looney
As yourself, how many times did someone actually get their 15 minutes of fame on these incomplete science scares, to find out years later they were wrong?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
