No, no, no, no, no!

I hate it when a fellow ScienceBlogger goes astray!

Fortunately, it’s been a long time indeed since I felt obligated to administer a dose of Insolence, Respectful or otherwise, to a fellow ScienceBlogger. It’s been even longer (as in, I think, never) that I’ve ever seen one whose resource I use regularly screw up so amazingly. I’m talking about Coby of A Few Things Ill-Considered, whose How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic (also found here) is a resource I turn to again and again and again when faced with denialist arguments about anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, I’ve been having periodic exchanges with a certain AGW denialist with whom I’ve tussled before, and How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic coupled with Skeptical Science have helped me enormously.

That’s why I take no pleasure in what I’m about to do, but two days ago Coby laid down a heapin’ helpin’ of anti-fluoridation fear mongering, chock full of dubious arguments (at best) that don’t belong on ScienceBlogs. Because Coby has been so good for so long in other areas, I’m willing to give him somewhat of a pass, but not so much that I will ignore or decline to rebut what he’s posted. Actually, it’s what his father, Dr. James S. Beck, who wrote the post and who has co-authored a book with well-known anti-fluoridation crank Paul Connett, the driving force behind the Fluoride Action Network entitled The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There, posted on Coby’s blog at Coby’s invitation, namely a post entitled The Case Against Fluoride.

Now, I understand that it’s Coby’s father and all, but he made quite the mistake in letting his father hijack his blog for a day. The hit to his reputation will be depressingly epic. Or maybe not. The right-wingers who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming and would be most likely to be all over Coby for a misfire like this tend to be by and large, if not receptive, at least not overtly dismissive of the anti-government arguments used against water fluoridation; they may not take him on (much) for this. On the other hand, a lot of people who defend the science of AGW recognize dubious arguments when they see them.

Before I begin in earnest, let me just say that I really don’t have a dog in this hunt. I really don’t. (If you don’t believe me, search this blog for the term “fluoride” or “fluoridation.” You won’t find much at all, and most of it will be in comments.) Unlike the case with the the anti-vaccine movement and other pseudoscience and anti-science movements that I regularly write about here, I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other about water fluoridation. I tend to go where the evidence leads me, and I realize that lately fluoridation has been questioned, given the widespread use of fluoride in toothpaste, which could potentially produce the same benefits, and increasing concerns about fluorosis. I get it. The issues surrounding the benefits and risks of water fluoridation are not straightforward. They never have been, actually. However, what I don’t get are the overheated simplistic arguments that come out of the anti-fluoridation movement. In fact, I had thought that the anti-fluoridation cranks disappeared decades ago; being anti-fluoridation is so…Cold War. It’s teh Communism, I tell ya! Just like Obama! Hmmmm. Come to think of it, maybe President Obama is the reason the fluoride cranks are coming out of the woodwork again. Certainly they came out of the woodwork in the comments of Coby’s post, and I expect the same thing to happen here. Perhaps we could have a contest: Which cranks are most persistent, tobacco/smoking denialists, AGW denialists, anti-vaccine loons, or anti-fluoridation activists?

Besides, Mandrake, have you ever seen Obama drink a glass of water?

And you do know, don’t you, the true purpose of introducing foreign substances into our precious bodily fluids:

But I digress. I ask your forgiveness because I love this particular movie and will use any excuse to quote it or use video from it. Just be glad I didn’t find an excuse to use the classic “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” scene or making some crack about how we “must not allow a mine shaft gap.”

Before I get into the post itself, let’s take a look at the main author of the book whose coauthor has sullied ScienceBlogs. Who is Dr. Paul Connett? I had, believe it or not, never heard of him before. Thankfully, the almighty Google is my friend, and it didn’t take much to find out a fair amount about him. First, take a look at his website, the Fluoride Action Network, for a minute. Coby’s father specifically mentioned this website as a source of more information; so I consider it fair game. Take a long look at the website. Peruse it. Feel anything familiar? I did. My pseudoscience Spider senses started tingling with a weaker version of the feeling I get when I read anti-science and pseudoscience blogs like Age of Autism–and with good reason too. One reason is right there on the front page in the form of 3,209 Medical, Scientific, and Environmental Professionals Sign Statement Calling for End to Fluoridation Worldwide

Oh no.

If there’s one very strong indicator of a crank, it’s the production of lists of scientists signing “statements” like the one above. For example, there’s the famous list of over 600 scientists against anthropogenic global climate change being circulated by James Inhofe (R-OK), which has been thoroughly debunked, the Perth Group signatories who reject HIV as the cause of AIDS, and the Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who dissent from Darwin or its list of physicians who reject “Darwinism.” If there’s one one major red flag indicating crankitude, it’s compiling lists like this. True, it’s not always a sign of crankitude, but when you examine the list and find out that most of the scientists actually don’t have any expertise in the field in question it’s a pretty good indication.

In the case of Connett’s list, we have:

  • 522 Nurses (RN, MSN, BSN, ARNP, APRN, LNC, RGON)
  • 458 DC’s (Doctor of Chiropractic, includes M Chiro)
  • 411 PhD’s – includes DSc (Doctor of Science); EdD (Doctor of Education); DrPH (Doctor of Public Health)
  • 356 MD’s (includes MBBS)
  • 291 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
  • 138 ND’s (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)
  • 77 Lawyers (JD, LLB, Avvocato)

Wait a minute. 458 chiropractors and 138 naturopaths? That means that at least 18.6% of the list is made up of CAM practitioners. Seriously. let me just put it this way. If you’re going to trumpet that you have all these “medical” and “scientific” professionals allegedly on your side, it sure doesn’t help your credibility to have so many quacks in the list mixed in with the real medical professionals. Make no mistake, naturopathy is a hodge-podge of quackery that includes homeopathy, reiki, traditional Chinese medicine and various detoxification woo, while many chiropractic practices are also highly dubious. In any case, naturopaths and chiropractors are hardly reliable health care professionals who can be counted on to evaluate science and epidemiology. Both CAM specialties tend to be anti-vaccine and anti-pharmaceutical to the core and can be reliably expected to be against fluoridation just on the basis of its not being “natural” or because it’s adding a chemical to water, regardless of what the evidence shows. Neither are lawyers. Come to think of it, neither are most nurses and doctors, either, and, I bet, most of the PhDs who signed.

In other words, it’s the classic appeal to authority. Dubious authority.

But what about Dr. Beck’s arguments, which are summaries of the arguments from the book he co-authored with Dr. Connett? His first argument is this:

Is fluoridation effective in reducing the incidence of dental caries (cavities)?

Fluoridation of public water supplies has been in effect somewhere in the world for seven decades now. Over that time the prevalence of dental caries has fallen in industrialized countries. This has been taken by many to indicate efficacy. But research has consistently shown that the decrease has occurred in countries without fluoridation to the same or greater degree as in those with fluoridation. Furthermore it is observed that in jurisdictions where fluoridation has been discontinued the incidence of caries has not risen. And studies comparing caries experience of cities fluoridated with cities not fluoridated have shown no difference, except where the nonfluoridated cities do better.

The answer to this first question is clearly no.

Well, that’s not what this systematic review says:

Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. It is recommended (see also www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel07/_files/fluoride_flyer.pdf) that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6-1.1 mg/l, depending on the climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis, in particular with reference to care in hospital for those following stroke.

It was based on 77 studies. Multiple studies over several decades attest to the efficacy of water fluoridation in decreasing dental caries. Now, it may be possible that fluoridation of water is arguably no longer necessary in some communities because of the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste and other sources of fluoride, but to argue that fluoridation is not effective requires some very nice cherry picking of studies, as it’s not difficult to find a large number of studies supporting the efficacy of fluoridation There’s also the issue of better dental care. Dr. Beck seems to ignore the fact that better dental care is also associated with decreases in dental caries; it’s quite likely that better access to dentists and better self-dental care could have contributed to the decline in dental caries. Dr. Beck’s argument is as simplistic as he accuses fluoridation boosters’ arguments of being. Once again, an argument can be made that fluoridation may not be necessary anymore in some communities, but to argue that fluoridation is ineffective is just not supportable.

The next argument is that fluoridation is dangerous. It is true that one well known potential complication of fluoride therapy is fluorosis; no one argues that. The vast majority of fluorosis is so mild that it isn’t even noticeable. One can argue if the benefit in terms of reductions in dental caries is worth the risk of mild fluorosis at the concentrations usually used, but it seems like a reasonable trade-off to me in most cases.

More worrisome are the other risks Dr. Beck cites:

Aside from dental fluorosis, evidence uncovered over the last two decades has shown an association of fluoride in drinking water with lower IQ in children. There are over twenty published studies showing this association. In laboratory studies of animals and of aborted human fetuses an association with abnormalities of cells of the brain has been found. Also it has been shown that fluoridation is associated with high levels of lead, a known neurotoxin, in the blood of children.

It irritates the crap out of me that Dr. Beck doesn’t include citations in his post. I couldn’t look up the articles easily and see for myself. No doubt he wants people to buy his book, but, quite frankly, I’m not going to buy his book. If he wants to convince in the blogosphere, he really should include links to all the studies. Still, it wasn’t too hard to find the study claiming lower IQ, which appears to be this one. A quick perusal demonstrates–surprise! surprise!–that there’s much less to this study than meets the eye. First, the “high” fluoride group was exposed to pretty darned high levels (8.3 ± 1.9 mg/L, which is more than eight times the typical level in fluoridated water). Second, the error bars were large and highly overlapping. Third, the study has not been replicated. Let’s just put it this way: Convinced, I am not. A perusal of a few other studies didn’t look any better. Who knows? There might be a case to be made here; if there is, though, Dr. Beck didn’t really make it.

I’m also not at all impressed with this argument either:

The possible incidence of bone fracture with fluoridation has been studied with mixed results. One of the strongest studies is presented in a paper by Li et al. published in 2001 which shows a rising prevalence of hip fracture correlated with a rising intake of fluoride starting with concentrations comparable with those used in fluoridation in North America. And this is just one example that suggests that hip fracture is caused by fluoridated water.

The study to which Dr. Beck is referring is this one, Li et al, from 2001. I’ll show you what I mean. This is one of two “money graphs” from the paper showing the relationship between overall fracture risk and fluoride in water:

i-b88847ec4ca0656a66ff609279116c69-fig2.jpg

Notice that the low point of the graph is right around 1 ppm, which is right around where fluoride concentrations are in areas where water is fluoridated. Hmmmm. If you believe this graph represents causation rather than just correlation, you’d want to fluoridate your water to be right around 1 ppm in order to decrease the prevalence of fractures, wouldn’t you? After all, 1 ppm is the low point on the graph.

In all fairness, there is another graph that looks at hip fracture prevalence adjusted for age and BMI. It’s that graph that Dr. Beck appears to be zeroing in on, and it looks like this:

i-a1b30a3331a69b7036575d952d042213-nfig003.jpg

Note that in this graph only the very highest fluoride level is statistically significantly different than the 1 ppm level. In any case, this second graph is what we in the biz call a “subgroup analysis.” My guess is that the authors were either puzzled by or didn’t like the first graph because it didn’t show the expected association. So, as researchers are far too frequently wont to do, they probably started looking for subgroups in which they could find a statistically significant result that they did like. This is, unfortunately, how a lot of medical research “finds” statistically significant results, particularly in retrospective studies. Sometimes it’s dishonest when investigators do it; more often it’s more desperation for a way to salvage a negative study with some positive results. (This latter motivation is particularly true in negative clinical trials of a new treatment.) Unfortunately, subgroup analysis is highly dubious if the subgroups were not specified and incorporated into the design of the study from the very beginning. When they’re done post hoc, they are virtually always regarded with suspicion and their results as, at best, hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesis-confirming. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of studies, it’s very difficult to tell whether the subgroup analysis done was incorporated into the original design of the trial.

Then there’s the issue of the number of actual fractures that can be analyzed, which is very small. Indeed, the authors themselves estimate that a study of at least 400,000 people would be required to answer the question of whether there is a relationship between hip fractures and fluoridation levels in water. It would also require a different trial design, namely a cohort study. Finally, also note that this is an ecological study, and ecological studies are well known in epidemiology for producing false positives. I’ve even blogged about this, as has Epiwonk. The bottom line is that ecological studies frequently find effects that aren’t there or find larger effects than more rigorous studies later find to be supported.

Let’s just put it this way. Li et al is just not particularly convincing, and there are no others that I could find that show such a relationship. A quick perusal of other studies that I tried to find to back up Dr. Beck’s other claims–at least those that I could find without doing too many PubMed searches; by this point it was late last night and I was rapidly tiring of looking up Dr. Beck’s references–reveal nothing any more impressive than either of these studies. It’s possible that I’m wrong. It would have taken a lot more time to go through all these claims than I had last night. Maybe if I have the time and inclination tonight I’ll look up a few more.

In the meantime, I remain completely underwhelmed.

Finally, Dr. Beck argues that, because it is ineffective and risky, fluoridation is therefore unethical and, even if it did work, it would still be unethical:

Given the evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and that it is unsafe, the question of ethicality is easily answered in the negative. But even if it were effective, it would not be acceptable for the following reasons.

It is unethical to administer a substance or procedure to a person without the consent of that person, consent informed by a qualified professional who must answer questions from that person and who must inform the recipient of the reasons for the administration and of possible side effects. Such consent has never been sought from, much less given by, those whose tap water is fluoridated.

Well, yes, water fluoridation would be unethical if it were indeed ineffective and dangerous, but it is not. It would also cost a hell of a lot of money for no benefit. As for the argument that, even if fluoridation were effective, it would still violate informed consent, well, that’s actually a political and ethical argument about acceptable and desirable public health measures, not a scientific argument. It’s perfectly fine to make that argument, if that’s what you believe, but it never ceases to irritate me how, like “health freedom” supporters of alternative medicine, anti-fluoridation activists seem to feel compelled to make their resistance to policy sound like a scientific argument.

Of course, one wonders why Dr. Beck and his co-authors don’t appear to be similarly worked up by the fact that most municipal water systems use chlorine in the water supplies as a disinfectant. It’s in there, and most of us who live in urban areas drink it, and the chlorine left over is on the order of 0.5 ppm, which is on the order of the fluoride concentration. Why is it OK to chlorinate water to kill bacteria but not OK to fluoridate water to try to reduce the incidence of dental caries? Using the same arguments, why isn’t Dr. Beck arguing that putting chlorine in drinking water similarly violates the principle of informed consent?

Then there’s Connett himself. It doesn’t take much to see that he’s descending into crankery, if he’s not already there. For example, he’s shown up being interviewed by the odious promoter of quackery, Dr. Joe Mercola, who asserts that the real cause of dental caries is high fructose corn syrup. That’s not enough, though. Connett has also shown up on the web video interview show of the even more odious seller of quackery, Mike Adams. It gets even better, though. Connett has also been on the show of über-conspiracy theorist crank Alex Jones.

That’s not the worst of it, though. He’s been showing up around Autism One. Yes, that’s right. Paul Connett appears to be associating with anti-vaccine cranks. Indeed, apparently he’s worked with the even bigger crank Russell Blaylock.

Yes, yes, I know that just being interviewed by a crank does not necessarily mean Connett is a crank. After all, anyone can be taken in by a crank, and it’s probably impractical to vet every interviewer who asks to interview you, particularly when you have a book (and, more importantly, a message) to sell. However, there comes a point when the cranks interviewing you are so cranky that you really should be able to figure it out; Google is available to all. With Dr. Connett, there is a disturbing pattern; he’s covered nearly all the crank bases, even Whale.to, where he is praised, and Gary Null. Cranks appear drawn to his ideas, and he doesn’t send them away.

The bottom line is that I’m exceedingly disappointed in Coby for posting this tripe on ScienceBlogs, just as disappointed as I’m sure he’d be in me were I ever to do a post with Ian Plimer, Lord Monckton, Steve Milloy, or another AGW denialist expressing “skepticism” about the scientific consensus regarding global climate change. He’d give me a right nasty blog smackdown I bet, and I’d richly deserve it. I realize that we all have our blind spots, and, of course, this is Coby’s father who’s teamed up with someone who appears to be an utter crank to write a book. I can even understand how Coby might want to help his dad sell some books. But, damn, for someone who’s in the past done such a spectacular job deconstructing pseudoscientific and denialist arguments regarding global warming, Coby sure has gone down the rabbit hole of bad arguments regarding fluoridation. Worse, this is even in the case of a situation where, when trying to weigh the risks of fluorosis versus the benefit against dental caries, there actually is probably a case to be made that a one-size-fits-all approach to water fluoridation may not even be necessary anymore. However, such a case, if it is made, will be nuanced and complex, based on a realistic assessment of the benefits, risks, and costs. Dr. Beck’s argument was anything but that. After all, he did entitle his post The Case Against Fluoride, and there clearly was a reason for that, namely to argue more like a lawyer advocating for a client rather than a scientist soberly assessing the evidence.

Comments

  1. #1 Hank Roberts
    December 3, 2010

    > D.C., chloramine, lead levels extremely high.

    Well, that’s right. Real scandal. Likely many places.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817676/

  2. #2 Enkidu
    December 3, 2010

    My collie mix has eaten several tubes of toothpaste, and still lives to cause further mischief (although, he’s eaten a bunch of stuff that aren’t exactly good for anyone’s health). We had to start buying toothpaste in hard plastic casing to keep him from getting into it. He just loves fresh, minty breath I suppose!

  3. #3 Drivebyposter
    December 4, 2010

    Have you tried putting chili powder on teh tube? or really near it?
    My grandmother’s cat used to eat her houseplants until i sprinkled some of that stuff around. Apparently animals don’t like the smell. I’m sure anything spicy would work.

  4. #4 Militant Agnostic
    December 4, 2010

    @203 I tried that using tabasco sauce with a dog – big mistake. When he tried to chew on the forbidden object the result was instant diarrhea.

  5. #5 Rainborowe Spence
    December 4, 2010

    Coby, you might want to read this if you want to understand why subgroup analysis is a problem:

    http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/a-frankly-thin-contrivance-for-writing-on-the-fascinating-issue-of-subgroup-analysis/

  6. #6 Jim Schultz
    December 4, 2010

    To Hank post 201,Fluoridation with siliofluorides makes water more corrosive and leaching of lead from brass, solder, and copper. Lead is only tested for every three years in homes by a sampling method knowing th4e combination of pipe types and connections between different metals makes it difficult to determine which homes will have the problem. This is a huge problem in old schools especially the water fountains. The aerators catch the lead particles the grind them up into smaller particles. The method of testing determines if this is discovered or not.The DC method was to do a high pressure flush after removing all aerators the night before the test. Then do a low pressure slow draw the next morning. This violates protocall and would never report even a severe problem of lead toxicity.
    DC also discovered this lead problem in 2001 but failed to report it in 2001 or 2002 or 2003. They did try to determine the cause and fired Seema Bhat who actually leaked the problem to the press.
    They started a 300 million dollar fix of replacing all lead lateral lines to homes. After 100 million in repairs they tested the results and had greater lead problems. They had combined new copper directly to the old lead line in the home. It was very predicatable to cause more leaching.
    Ph control and exact chemicals and sequence make the differences besides each water is unique. Many plants have no flow control valves so chemical levels change as flow changes. Small cities often let the plant go on autopilot and sometimes discover the problems.
    Ortho, poly or tri phosphate can reduce corrosion and leaching which is what DC ended up doing.
    All of these risks are increased with fluoridation and many times worse with chloramines which most cities now use.
    Is it a risk worth taking and is informed consent given. Do dentists and doctors consider this or are they even aware of this new proven greater risk?
    Again the in home sampling is only done every three years.Even an honest person can miss finding it. A dishonest person can fail to report it. That is what happened in DC. Then they did their best to make the problem go away. The Washington DC health department even claimed to have lost their lead test results after a pubic records request was made. only 201 kids were reported on in a CDC study looking at kids on filtered or bottled water. Lead blood levels decline 50% per month after the exposure. Some were tested up to a year later. This made the study invalid as proof of safety.
    Now most cities use chloramines so the risks have increased for corrosion and lead leaching.
    Marc Edwards ended up proving hundreds if not thousands of kids were made lead toxic with another data base several years later in a peer reviewed study.
    So many cities have had the lead in the water fountain problem. Fluoridation chemical combined with chlorimine is a often ignored proven risk.
    My own cities water plant was almost taken over by the state after not taking actions required for 33 problems. This went on for years with the citizens unaware. Then the commission claimed they were not informed but had paid the fine the year before. Failure is a stepchild. So they fired another water plant guy like they did before.

  7. #7 Jim Schultz
    December 4, 2010

    Thanks Hank for the excellent link for lead leaching from fluoridation and chloramines. It does give some specifics on the DC problem and the three years before telling the public.

  8. #8 Militant Agnostic
    December 4, 2010

    I just notice what Coby’s post previous to the anti-fluoride fiasco was.

    My irony meter just melted.

    Coby is definitely Hard on Equipment

  9. #9 Enkidu
    December 4, 2010

    Drivebyposter: Two of my dogs will eat anything, including chili powder. They think that I’ve just seasoned it for them.

  10. #10 Militant Agnostic
    December 4, 2010

    Enkidu – I am definitely not going to break into your house.

  11. #11 c0nc0rdance
    December 4, 2010

    The comments here and on Colby’s blog exceed my capacity to process in a single sitting. However, I’ve been doing a “lit dive” lately for a video on the topic of water fluoridation.

    What I found was not at all shocking:
    1. Over 80% of the well-published studies show efficacy is well-supported.
    2. While fluorosis is a real health threat, there’s little to no correlation between dosage and outcomes below a floating threshold. Bioaccumulation is not linear or permanent by any means. I see some support for lowering recommended levels by half (0.25-0.5 ppm).
    3. Fluoride in drinking water has multiple modes of action, distinct from fluoridated toothpaste. It inhibits bacterial growth when secreted in saliva, it promotes remineralization, and it replaces hydroxyapatite with fluoroapatite. Some of these are NOT measurable in topical-alone (toothpaste) administration.

    Some example studies:
    1. Cochrane Review: Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;10(3):183-91.
    2. Irish pan-lit review: Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;10(3):141-8.
    3. CDC study: J Dent Res. 2007 May;86(5):410-5.

    I have no dog in this fight, either, but I can spot the signs of pseudoscience when I see it, so my guard is up.

    I think there is room for serious discussion of policy on the ethics of fluoridated water. It seems a little haphazard and intrusive, and I can see the policy discussion having good points on both sides. On the science, though, I don’t see how you can read the body of literature and come up with a conclusion that water fluoridation is ineffective or uniformly unsafe at recommended levels.

  12. #12 trrll
    December 4, 2010

    The ironic thing, as Orac implies in passing, is that it is possible that a reasonable argument could be made that most people are now getting adequate fluoride from toothpastes and topical dental treatments, and that fluoridation of water is largely superfluous and unjustified given even the minor cosmetic issue of fluorosis. But the antifluoridation zealots are so tied into crazy arguments like asserting that fluoride is “industrial waste” that nobody will ever take them seriously.

  13. #13 Jim Schultz
    December 4, 2010

    To post 210 cOncOrdance, What about collateral damage as post 201 by Hank gives link to. Lead is leached by siliofluorides and new chloramines sharply increase this leaching. Washington Dc is a perfect example from 2001 until past 2003 with out of control lead leaching. Siliofluorides are used in industry to surface treat brass for lead removal. The EPA has known this for years. They did not warn cities of the additional risk of changing disinfectants. Many found out the hard way. Corrosion and lead problems in homes. Not every home but often older homes with several types of metals connected in plumbing. All plumbers known what happens. leaks when fittings are eaten away or rusted. Water plants often have to replace equipment around fluoride injection points. Often the plant design is improper and PH balance is difficult to maintain. PH and temp are big issues.
    Is this side issue of damaging water quality a issue? Marc Edwards of Virginia tech thought this could damage pipes and homes in the tens of billions. He assists in lawsuits in this area. I have seen total pipe replacement required in years from poor water treatment. Every unit of 200 in a Florida condo I worked on when it was built. Then when it was done again years later with plastic CPVC.
    This is not just about teeth. Far from it.
    There are so many other new sources of fluoride exposure then the water anyway. Many foods have far more from processing and pesticides. This was not true years ago. Profume is even used to fluoride fumigant of 200 foods in storage and processing. 900ppm is max allowed for dried eggs and 70-130 for grains and nuts 20-30ppm max. Most things less but this requires no posting on label.

  14. #14 Jim Schultz
    December 5, 2010

    Washington Post just carried an article on the lead Debacle in DC. Sat Dec 4 article. As bad as this article shows they behaved, it was much worse. They did not just ignore health risks of sky high lead levels. They aided in a multifaceted cover up. They even altered the standards to ignore looking for lead in water by design. To shift focus.
    It is government at its very worst. The only person fired back then was the lady who told the press. I read some of the transcripts of the investigations several years ago.
    They screwed up so many things and then did a cover up to allow people to remain at risk. This started on Nov 1 2000 when they switched to chloramine. They were in the middle of the three year lead testing and did not report the off the chart lead levels they discovered. They let people be poisoned for 3 years with no warning. This was criminal behavior. The the EPA ,CDC and Dc health department all conspired to do a cover up to protect themselves and policy. Fluoridation is the lynch pin for this very real lead risk. Faked reporting of test results is not that uncommon. Helps your job evaluation and pay raises.
    Read the Post article for some insight into the CDC and EPA management. This type of honesty issue is why the EPa professional unions say fraud has made fluoride the protected pollutant. Bill Hirzy PHD EPA senior toxicologist told congress this June 29 2000 in Calvert hearings. Robert Carton PHD toxicologist first said this in 1985 as Headquarter EPA union president. He said it was clear cut fraud of altered reports and ignored data.

  15. #15 Pablo
    December 5, 2010

    The ironic thing, as Orac implies in passing, is that it is possible that a reasonable argument could be made that most people are now getting adequate fluoride from toothpastes and topical dental treatments, and that fluoridation of water is largely superfluous and unjustified given even the minor cosmetic issue of fluorosis. But the antifluoridation zealots are so tied into crazy arguments like asserting that fluoride is “industrial waste” that nobody will ever take them seriously.

    I’ve often said the same thing about the “pro-hemp” movement. There might actually be some legitimate arguments, but no one is going to pay attention when they all come from major stoners like Woody Harrelson.

    He doesn’t care a rat’s twit about all the uses of hemp, but one…

  16. #16 Jim Schultz
    December 5, 2010

    Post 214 response, So Pablo believes until we have a better class of opposition we should promote this policy? Ingested and topical exposures are increasing. The goal in 1945 was 1mg per day ingestion for young kids as the theory was pre eruption by ingestion. Now every researcher knows primary benefit is topical but very likely the only measurable benefit. Multiple sources of dental products now handle that many times over in most cases.Even third world has toothpaste.
    Good dental health has at its foundation better nutrition as was documented by Weston A Price in his 1938 book on dental health around the world not yet eating highly processed foods. Dental caries were rare and strong wide jaws with straight teeth were nearly universal. Dentists were rarer. Breads and jams etc bring on the cavities in less then a generation. http://www.westonaprice.org has the study if interested.
    Even Burt at U of Michigan in a 2007 study showed almost 100% with cavities by age 5 in the Detroit study. Cavities have increased in these big city poor minority groups by 12% this last decade. Nearly every one has been fluoridated for several decades. This is not the magic bullet once believed possible.
    Baby bottle tooth is a huge problem often causing a ugly start in life. Rotted black nubs result from sippy cups and bottle with sugar drinks bathing teeth all day or for naps. This is 100% preventable by giving water instead by is epidemic in some population segments. It varies by ethnic groups greatly. Better education prevents this not fluoridation.
    The EPA science unions have taken positions against fluoridation. The first in 1985 in Washington Dc under Bob Carton PHD toxicologist risk specialist. A panel vote had been altered to allow the Max to be raised from 2.0ppm to 4.0ppm under strong lobby from South Carolina. They did not want to install expensive fluoride removal equipment where they violated in several cities. The review panel voted 7-2 not science existed to prove the increase safe even for the one medical effect they considered of third stage skeletal fluorosis. Their advise was altered to say they thought even 8ppm would be safe and on that advise the Max was changed to 4ppm. All the experts signed a letter and tried to get dental journals to publish their concerns. They went to the EPA union who did listen. They thought this was a ethics issue for scientists.
    In ever growing numbers EPA science unions have asked for a moratorium on fluoridation . Congress and EPA management have not taken action. By 2005 11 EPa unions were on the record asking congress to halt. Feb 29 2008 it was 19 Unions representing 10,000 skilled professionals. http://www.nteu280.org is the site with their early position papers and the history of fluoridation and the EPA unions from their perspective. It seems reasonable to consider their position as they are the ranks qualified to make the science based safety and benefit analysis. They have identified risks many also in the 2006 NRC Report of 507 pages. They believe a moratorium is needed and the proper goal for fluoride should have been determined like arsenic and lead as cumulative toxins. A goal of ZERO in the theory and then the real world number. Currently it is 15ppb for lead and 10ppb for arsenic and 4000ppb for fluoride. Bob Carton and Bill Hirzy are the two EPA union spokesmen who handled this issue to the public. Both have articles and videos for the details. Both are in private life now but still very outspoken against EPA policy on fluoridation.
    Must we keep fluoridation until the zealots with their crazy arguments are silenced? Should science be about skill in branding?

  17. #17 Kemist
    December 5, 2010

    I know there must be others here who are old enough to remember the days they came to the schools and painted fluoride on your teeth.

    Weird.

    For us it was a foul-tasting (they called it “strawberry”) paste applied after the yearly dentist teeth cleaning.

  18. #18 rtj
    December 5, 2010

    “Must we keep fluoridation until the zealots with their crazy arguments are silenced?”

    You owe me a new irony meter. Oh, and Coby? You owe scienceblogs an apology for attracting more of these nutjobs out of the woodwork like roaches.

  19. #19 defides
    December 5, 2010

    “Both CAM specialties tend to be anti-vaccine and anti-pharmaceutical to the core and can be reliably expected to be against fluoridation just on the basis of its not being “natural” or because it’s adding a chemical to water, regardless of what the evidence shows. Neither are lawyers.”
    Grammar fail, sorry. ‘Neither are lawyers’ what?

  20. #20 Hank Roberts
    December 6, 2010

    > lead debacle

    Not just DC.
    Not just from water treatment.
    Not over yet.
    Not handled by the current lead level regulations.

    Who knew?

    http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2010/11/111710-engineering-edwardsunc.html

    “One thing to remember is that Congress usually acts to mobilize the Government’s efforts well after the need for it has become apparent. It usually takes a crisis atmosphere to get them to act, and it usually comes on the heels of demand for more and better Government action. ”
    http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/10c.htm
    Interview With Douglas M. Costle [EPA Journal – Nov./Dec. 1980]

  21. #21 Samantha Vimes
    December 6, 2010

    … I’m *sure* I’ve read that the average IQ measurement keeps creeping upwards. Maybe he’s got it backwards, and flouride is making kids smarter. (I don’t mean that, btw, it’s just a marginally less stupid claim)

  22. #22 Jim Schultz
    December 6, 2010

    Post 220 , Thanks again Hank , This new peer reviewed case study by Marc Edwards proves new buildings with lead free brass valves can still be very lead toxic. Lead free only means 8% lead or less in the brass. Sometimes the lead on the surface is much ,much higher. Just like all the old 30% lead brass. It is rare these newer buildings are tested. Most believe the problem is only in very old buildings. It is most common in the older buildings and most cities only test every three years for lead and only in a small sample.
    Fluoridation increases this leaching greatly. Chloramines increase it more and the EPA strongly pushes their use.
    Common sense is not so common in government.
    Fluoridation increases this collateral damage in other toxins like lead. Poor in inner cities are at greatest risk. The least likely to be aware to protect themselves also. The least like to use a filter even for the baby.

  23. #23 c0nc0rdance
    December 6, 2010

    213, Jim Schultz. I was completely unaware of the lead issue, which shows a weakness in my own research. However, as I search PubMed for fluoride and lead toxicity, I don’t see many health studies of good quality. I would much prefer to make decisions where data exists.

    Here is one slightly alarming paper that might be used to support your assertions:
    Toxicology. 2010 Apr 30;271(1-2):21-6.
    Can you suggest others?

    I know large swaths of Europe still possess lead pipes, and their drinking water is naturally fluoridated at or above 1 ppm. Any data on lead toxicity in eastern France, for example, that you are aware of? It seems like an obvious testbed.

    As I say, I remain truly skeptical on the issue. That is, open minded until I can find adequate evidence either way. Research is a pain, but I care if my beliefs/knowledge are true. I have no vested interest except my own health and that of my family and neighbors.

    The one very large concern I have with the scientific arguments against water fluoridation is the assumption of linear, non threshold models of toxicity. Animal studies on 10 mg/L are less convincing that cumulative large cohort studies at real dosages. I hope you agree.

    You can find me on YouTube if you prefer an offline discussion.

  24. #24 Mu
    December 6, 2010

    Washington Dc switched to chloramine from chlorine after months of double dosing. Lead blisters blasted off pipes skyrocketing lead levels hundreds and thousands of times over the 15ppb max.
    Thousand time 15 ppb is 1.5% (above the solubility limit for most lead compounds) and also lethal with a single glass. I somehow missed the reports of thousands of people in DC dying after their morning coffee in 2000, but it does explain some of the actions of congress at the time.

  25. #25 Mu
    December 6, 2010

    Bah, mixed up ppb and ppm for solubility, still close enough on the lethality so.

  26. #26 Trish Gannon
    December 6, 2010

    Hmm. I am an anti-fluoride crank. Although I came to it only recently – I was a water fluoridation supporter until our community began debating whether or not to remove fluoride from the water, and I took a fresh look at the issue. I came out of it with these thoughts:

    1. Fluoride is beneficial to public health due to its ability to reduce dental caries.
    2. Dental caries carries a health risk – untreated, severe caries can cause death.
    3. Fluoride can be added to municipal water systems at a relatively low cost.

    Those were the pros. Then the cons.
    1. Fluorosis caused by over-fluoridation is an increasing public health issue, though the effects appear to be mainly cosmetic (I could find no studies indicating a health threat due to fluorosis.)It can be quite expensive to treat. (Both my younger children have mild cases of fluorosis, which their dentist offered to ‘fix’ at a cost of thousands of dollars worth of veneers.)
    2. A relatively small portion of the population is allergic to fluoride.
    3. Fluoride must be removed from the water used for dialysis patients.
    4. Fluoridated water is not recommended for use in preparing infant formula.
    5. There is information suggestive that fluoride intake is related to issues with bone density.
    6. We typically fluoridate water to 1.0 mg/L. In 1994 a World Health Organization expert committee on fluoride use stated that 1.0 mg/L should be an “absolute upper bound, even in cold climates, and that 0.5 mg/L may be an appropriate lower limit.”
    7. Studies have shown a decrease in dental caries in areas where the decrease cannot be explained by water fluoridation (with supposition that the decrease may be due to better diets, better dental care and/or increased access to fluoride from other sources.)
    8. In the US, we routinely add fluoride not just to dental products, but to a wide variety of processed foods.
    9. The CDC states that the best use of fluoride to prevent dental caries is topical.

    In our area specifically, we have a population of around 50,000 people. Water fluoridation was only provided within the city limits (pop. 5,000) and only in a system that provided water to about half of that population.

    Given the above, it appeared to me that fluoridating our water provided relatively little benefit (how many of the 2,500 receiving it were children in the age range in which it is beneficial?), and that the benefit of fluoride is rather easily obtained (through dental products, food and, in our area, fluoride tablets provided free of charge) as opposed to an unknown potentially severe risk (potential allergies, a large population of elderly people generally more at risk for bone fractures), mild(?) risk (uneducated parents preparing formula with fluoridated water) and some level of increased costs (cosmetically repairing fluorosis, and the removal of fluoride for dialysis treatments in an area with a high prevalence of kidney disease – we recently opened our SECOND dialysis center here.) And while the cost to add fluoride to the water is relatively minimal, at a time of budgets so tight cities are turning off street lights, any savings can be a benefit.

    It’s unfortunate that many ‘cranks’ also support an end to the addition of fluoride to water, because their presence seems to prevent people from honestly considering the merits of an opposing viewpoint.

    Trish

  27. #27 Vicki
    December 6, 2010

    Trish,

    You make some good points, but to be fair, you should also ask what percentage of those 2,500 people are formula-fed infants, and what percentage of them are elderly people. Either it’s a population of 50,000, or a subgroup of 2,500: it isn’t 50,000 at risk from drinking water that can only benefit the 2,500 who are actually drinking it.

    (There are other questions worth asking, to do with things like the actual uptake of those fluoride tablets, but I just wanted to point out that you seem to be using different populations in different parts of your discussion.)

  28. #28 Jim Schultz
    December 6, 2010

    One would never expect death at the fountain from lead. It is a developmental risk to kids for neurotoxic issues and also kidney damage. And so on.
    My point is siliofluorides and even worse with chloramines can blast off lead from brass old solder and even worse lead pipe. The recent Virginia Tech new building issue had them with 300ppb lead in fountains from lead free shut offs. Even lead free has up to 8% lead. They spent 30,000 to find this problem but then most never test so would never discover. This is more thyical then rare especially in old buildings. Often ignored or faked by high pressure flush after cleaning out lead filled aeriators. Fake security, fake safety. They did this in Dc , they faked every safe report by bad method of test. It proved nothing.
    I really have not researched the lead issue that much. But the DC debacle seems the most glaring for many reasons. It was ignored for 3 years. the did 97 million in repairs that made it worse not better. The CDC and EPA assisted in the cover up with the DC health department. There are no winners in this debacle. I believe it was criminal activity.
    The investigation is sort of like the Wrangle one but slow motion with no final outcome quite yet.
    Water treatment is complex using 40 toxic chemicals and each water is different and each plant is different. Sometimes one batch of chemical gives different results then the last.
    This is a learning experience for everyone as so much data exists. Much of it very poor quality.
    Any benefit seems topical in nature which is the opposite of fluoridation old theory. Yoder K.M. 2007 shows most dentists still believe the old pre eruptive ingestion theory. 85% in Illinois and slightly less in Indiana when tested. Old beliefs die slowly. Study on Pub med.com

  29. #29 Trish Gannon
    December 6, 2010

    Actually Vicki, I wasn’t, though your point is good as I wasn’t clear. I mentioned the greater area population because that’s who pays for the fluoridation. In addition, the dialysis centers are in the fluoridation area and draw from the full population.

    I don’t know the actual uptake of fluoride tablets (the pharmacists say they give away a lot). The incident of dental caries (I know this is a science blog, but can I just say cavities?) is higher in poorer populations… who are less likely to get dental treatment. (Almost completely unlikely here – three years ago we had one dentist who would accept Medicaid payments… now we have none.) They also tend to be less educated in the need for fluoride supplements. However, I’ve been told the surrounding area has a fairly high fluoride concentration in the water. And the poor generally eat a diet high in processed foods, which contains a lot of fluoride.

    So I remain opposed to supplemental fluoridation of our water… but that’s based on our specific situation here. I’m not sure that’s the best choice for other areas, but when other areas oppose it, I would be willing to look at their reasons.

  30. #30 Trish Gannon
    December 6, 2010

    ugh! *incidence*

  31. #31 Jim Schultz
    December 7, 2010

    226 ,229 Trish, On the cavity issue. Most dentists refuse to treat the poor kids on medicaid. It is often claimed 20% do but often it is far fewer. My county in Florida, Volusia has 4 out of over 200 dentists willing to treat poor kids on medicaid. Most only allow them in the office one day a week even then. Florida pays the least 30 cents on the dollar of normal fees. We are number 49 th in providing dental access to the poor said the recent PEW center review. We did not have even one public health dentist for years. Then one who only treated 6 kids a day after treating not one while the office was remodeled for 18 months. This was with a staff of 4 sitting idle. They he quit and they sit idle for one year. The new dentist is paid per kid at 45 dollars and treats 30 a day. The other was paid a flat salary.
    A dentist could go broke treating poor kids. Is fluoridation the smokescreen to make it look like the poor are cared for? Real care involves dentist treatment and education with the foundation of better nutrition. Fluoridation is no replacement in the real world.

  32. #32 Kate
    December 7, 2010

    ProTip of the day:

    When Sid Offit *defends* your position vociferously, it’s a very good indication that your position is probably untenable in the real world. Re-evaluate your hypothesis by going back to first principles and work forward from there as it’s likely you’ve made a glaringly large error in your line of reasoning.

    2nd ProTip of the day:

    Homeopathy is utter clap-trap. Trying to pin the blame for fluoride “poisoning” on a concentration in the range of 1’s or 10’s of ppm makes you seem as though you can’t do simple multiplication, addition, subtraction and division.

    coby:

    You, sir, are an idiot. (That’s not an ad hominem, by the way. I think your ideas are ludicrous because they have no basis in reality. Your apparent idiocy is beside the point.)

    Pablo: How nice for you that you can read Woody Harrelson’s mind! What an AMAZING feat! How utterly FASCINATING that you, and only you, have this magical ability to tell what he REALLY means. … Can you guess what I’m thinking right now about *you*? Bet you can’t!

    …and lastly: if you are such a terrible parent that you can’t find a way to supervise your young children while they brush their teeth to ensure they don’t swallow their toothpaste you ought not to be surprised when the little dear turns out to me a mouth-breathing drool-factory, as you’re also unlikely to supervise their other activities or provide adequate protection from things like lead paint, weird fungi, mold spores, household cleaning products, hanging cords from blinds and drapery, wild animals or the elements. So just give up now, and admit you fail as a loving parent and human being.

  33. #33 T. Bruce McNeely
    December 7, 2010

    This stuff about kids swallowing toothpaste is pretty funny to a parent like me. Kids LOVE to spit! Brushing teeth is one of the few chances they get to do it.

  34. #34 ferp
    December 7, 2010

    The best part is how the title of the book just screams fearmongering. “Hazardous waste” in our water? OHNOES! Of course “industrial byproduct that’s being recycled instead of being dumped” doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it?

    I find it odd that coby does not seem to recognize the tactics being used here are pretty much the same that anti-vaxers and such have used (“THIOMERSAL IS TOXIC WASTE/YOU’RE INJECTING MERCURY IN YOUR FETUSES”).

  35. #35 Jim Schultz
    December 8, 2010

    One would think that Bruce. But the ADA position is fluoridation causes very little dental fluorosis(13%) and young kids swallowing toothpaste most of the rest. And especially th3e worst damage as most agree many of the youngest do swallow about half on the brush. Many also love the taste and eat it. Some brush just for the taste. The Brits and Aussies just both in the last year produced data showing no benefit below 1000ppm. They are now advising 5000ppm for at risk kids admitting more dental fluorosis will happen. The biggest Us study published in 1990 on 39,207 kids showed 66.4% had evidence of fluoride toxicity on teeth. Because the study also showed no measurable benefit they changed the reporting method to show a slight benefit in 5 to 7 year olds. This actually was a delayed eruption shift of cavity curve. Not a actual decrease.

  36. #36 Jim Schultz
    December 9, 2010

    To Ferp post 234, The EPA ordered smokestack pollution scrubbers installed on the Florida fertilizer plants in 1972. Large sections of groves, crops and cattle downwind had been destroyed over decades by airborne fluorides.About 4% of the phosphate rock is fluoride which must be driven off as it is very toxic to plants.
    The US government had admitted that airborne fluorides had done more damage then all other airborne contaminates combined from 1957-68. Most of the settlements had been sealed and many were against aluminum plants.
    George Glasser had written many articles about this toxic brew and human exposures at the phosphate plants. He also got the EPa for Florida to admit this co product risk and that it existed. We have huge radioactive gypsum mountains of forever toxic waste topped by cooling ponds of billions of gallons of very toxic acidic water.This used to all just go in the rivers before 1972.
    In a FOI request George did discover the fact that it was common for this co product to be called scrubber liquor by those claiming it was not. They discussed how to stop this as they knew it was common.
    NSF is not a government agency but was formed in 1988 by the EPA to test and establish standards for this product. To date they refuse to state it is safe for human consumption or has any benefit. They also refuse to provide the specification sheets as regulation requires for each batch d3elivered. H2SiF6 has a AWWA standard of b703-06 but it ends up only being tested for fluoride content. The mines also had produced up to 75% of all US uranium needs in solvent uranium recovery from the phosphoric acid. The last of the 7 units was closed in Lake Wales about 1999. Mosaic has discussed building a new uranium recovery plant for 200 million in Plant City. That is on hold now as the market price of yellow cake is down below 100 dollars a pound. So purchasers get free bonus uranium unknown to them. Phosphate mines create huge long term contamination. Cattle still die when grazing grass for too long around mines long closed. Subdivisions sit on top of many of the old strip mines. I have many family in the area so have visited from the 50’s and lived their myself for a short while.
    A rose is a rose by any name.
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html This should link to the EPA NRC 2006 review.
    The EPA has missed another deadline for new contaminate levels so a notice to litigate was just served to them. This is both for water and Dow fluoride fumigant for foods. Profume which has been used from 2004 on up to 200 food products is called Vikane and has been used to kill termites for decades. Now bedbugs are on the list with strawberries and eggs, nuts and grains, cheese ,cereals and ham.
    Relax your dentist said it is safe and might protect your teeth.

  37. #37 ferp
    December 9, 2010

    It doesn’t concern you slightly that you jump from topic to topic a million miles a minute while citing information on a website that actively supports, of all the people, Joseph Mercola’s work?

    And what is “fluoride toxicity on teeth.”? If you have a toxic level of something in your mouth, by definition, you would be dying. I have an unpleasant feeling that’s what you’re using to describe dental fluorosis…

  38. #38 Jim Schultz
    December 10, 2010

    Silly boy. Chronic long term toxicity is very a different issue from acute such as the LD 50 scale for killing 50% of rats at a certain dose.
    The chronic issue is more about effects on thyroid or para thyroid as the NRC 2006 admitted can happen as low as .7mg daily dose when iodine deficient.
    Do you always insult when you have nothing of value to say?
    In lawsuit fluoridation was proven a risk with no benefit in Texas 1988 Farris and 1980 Pennsylvania, Illinois 1982. The findings of fact still stand untouched. The federal courts did over rule on jurisdiction.

  39. #39 lordsetar
    December 10, 2010

    Jim Schultz #235:

    The Brits and Aussies just both in the last year produced data showing no benefit below 1000ppm. They are now advising 5000ppm for at risk kids admitting more dental fluorosis will happen. The biggest Us study published in 1990 on 39,207 kids showed 66.4% had evidence of fluoride toxicity on teeth. Because the study also showed no measurable benefit they changed the reporting method to show a slight benefit in 5 to 7 year olds. This actually was a delayed eruption shift of cavity curve. Not a actual decrease.

    Are you going to talk about the studies or are you going to cite them?

  40. #40 Cerise
    December 10, 2010

    I grew up in a state that didn’t fluoridate water. I brush my teeth everyday, floss and use mouthwash. I have always had caries and have some now despite visits to the dentist. My fiance eats sugar almost constantly and quite frankly is terrible at brushing his teeth, never flosses nor uses mouthwash. He also rarely goes to the dentist. I was disgusted when he last went the dentist because despite this he does not have a single cavity nor even warning signs of one. When I mentioned it to his mum, she pointed out he grew up with fluoridated water. As for fluoridation being linked to lower IQ, he’s currently working on his PhD after earning class 1A honours. His sister who missed out on the fluoridated water has the same issues I do despite taking care of her teeth with topical fluoride. She’s also not as academic as he is. Needless to say, I was relieved when they recently started fluoridating water in my area. The limitation of fluoride tablets is that people aren’t always going to be consistent with taking them. Fluoridating water is convenient really much like vaccinating newborns for HepB, a blood borne virus they are unlikely to encounter until sexually active.

  41. #41 Cerise
    December 10, 2010

    As for the anti-vaxers, I’m just waiting for the day that an epidemic of measles, mumps or Rubella rips through their ranks. The true tragedy of it will be that immunocompromised people, infants, people who can’t be vaccinated due to allergy and nonresponders to Rubella for example such as myself will also be in the firing line. But hey provaxers are the selfish ones for wanting them to vaccinate for the greater good. Sorry for getting off topic. I’ve spent the better part of this week feeling sick over someone promoting the AVN as a good source of unbiased information. Never mind the basic facts not even related to vaccination that the organization has gotten wrong.

  42. #42 Luna_the_cat
    December 10, 2010

    im Schultz #235:
    The Brits and Aussies just both in the last year produced data showing no benefit below 1000ppm. They are now advising 5000ppm for at risk kids admitting more dental fluorosis will happen.

    I live in the UK, and I call bullshit. What data? Citations, please!

    I’m also going to throw this into the mix:
    http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/environmental_health/Fluoriwater.jsp

  43. #43 Sid Offit
    December 10, 2010

    Luna, I posted this over on the other blog

    @ Luna

    So you are upset about what fluoride is potentially doing to people, on the one hand, and you hang out with people who advocate using treatments which are far more dangerous, on autistic children, on the other?

    I find it bizarre you believe a books credibility is determined by the harmful ideas espoused by a program used for the promotion of said book. If I’m promoting a book should I avoid avowed socilst Lawrence O’donnels msnbc show even those his socialism has done more damge that even chelation. Should I avoid the progressives on the View as well as uber-liberal Larry King?
    ———————

    It’s probably safe to say that fluoridation of the water has the largest dental-caries-prevention effects in lower-income populations with low rates of compliance with dental recommendations for toothbrushing and regular cleanings

    Yes lets all give our children dental fluorosis so we can help those feeding their kids lolly pops

    PS – Kids don’t get regular cleanings at the dentist

    ——————-

    Results: For 5/6-yr-olds, mean primary caries scores were 96.0% less in fluoridated than nonfluoridated subjects – In 8–12-yr-olds, DMFT values favoured water-fluoridated subjects; their caries-free trend was significant

    I don’t have access to the entire study – only the abstract, but the author makes no mention regarding delayed eruption in the primary dentition (where he/they cite 96% impact) He does mention it having no effect in the permanent dentition but fails to put an efficacy number on the 8-12 year old group. Maybe delayed eruption accounts for such splendid results. Interesting we go from 96% to just “significant”

    —————————

    Colleagues at a nearby mouse lab were unable to confirm your assertion that “It is well known that a rat needs to receive a dose 5-10 times as high so as to reach the same plasma levels as a human”

    The Textbook of Pharmaceutical Medicine By John P. Griffin P132 – goes into some detail on rats vs. humans

    Also google “rats typically require higher doses of drugs than humans to observe an effect” (the web address is quite long)
    ———————–

  44. #44 Luna_the_cat
    December 10, 2010

    Sid, I replied over on the other blog. Your reference is irrelevant to the question, as it does not refer to fluoride absorption. Sadly, most of your post is equally composed of misunderstanding and irrelevance.

  45. #45 Vicki
    December 10, 2010

    Jim,

    A jury verdict on a finding of fact means that a group of six or twelve people, with limited resources, decided that one argument was more persuasive than the other. The jurors not only aren’t allowed to do their own research, in the United States they aren’t allowed to question the witnesses (e.g. to follow up on testimony) or to take notes on what they hear. The lawyers also get the opportunity to disqualify potential jurors for, among other things, previous experience in the area.

    If jury verdicts always reflected physical reality, O.J. Simpson would be both guilty and not guilty of two murders: the civil and criminal juries reached different verdicts, possibly because they were using different standards of proof.

  46. #46 ferp
    December 11, 2010

    “If jury verdicts always reflected physical reality, O.J. Simpson would be both guilty and not guilty of two murders: the civil and criminal juries reached different verdicts, possibly because they were using different standards of proof.”

    Civil lawsuits basically have reduced requirements for proving one’s guilt as far as I’m aware, so yeah, that was pretty much the reason why criminally he was not found responsible, but civilly he was.

  47. #47 Hank Roberts
    December 13, 2010

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/fsu-rda120910.php
    “Public Release: 9-Dec-2010
    Journal of the American Chemical Society
    Researcher develops accurate method for detecting dangerous fluoride
    Used in the proper amounts, it can make teeth stronger and aid in the treatment of osteoporosis. When excessive amounts are consumed, however, it can be a killer ….”

  48. #48 Hank Roberts
    December 13, 2010

    And before anyone goes ballistic over that, it’s not my opinion; odds are good it’s not the opinion of the researcher or the American Chemical Society. It’s a press release, dammit. Someone should check it out.

  49. #49 Pablo
    December 13, 2010

    Hank Roberts – maybe YOU should read the paper.

    Jesus, just looking at the title I can tell you it says NOTHING about whether municipal water should be fluorinated.

    That comment is pulled, at best, from the introduction. Moreover, it’s true – excessive amounts of fluoride can be dangerous. The question is, what is excessive? This paper certainly doesn’t address that, but does describe a nice new analytical procedure for measuring fluoride concentration.

    Man, talk about a non sequitor.

  50. #50 Humane Sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    Since WHEN did drinking lead, arsenic, mercury, aluminum in ANY amount, along with the industrial waste grade chemicals of sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, Fluorosilic Acid ever become SAFE?

    Read this: http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/

    Then BOTHER to READ Professor Paul Connett’s book.

    You might be considered useful to this debate AFTER doing these two fundamental actions (ie. Actually READ the book, before you spit lies and vitriole). Until then, the ‘Pro Fluoride’ bunch are just regurgitating the same tired old garbage they’ve spouted to keep their personal pockets lined and people fooled.

    Little babies deserve better than a soup of heavy metals pumped into their bloodstream and traversing the blood brain barrier. And everyone else too.

    The vitriole and fear-mongering towards one well written, extremely well referenced book, shows the power the Truth has to shine on the lies of ignorance.

  51. #51 Robert G
    December 4, 2011

    This article cites the Fluoride Action Network’s website and decides to hone in on a single feature – a list of professionals opposed to fluoridation. But, what about the rest of the site? How about reviewing, for example, the Health Effects Database ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-health.aspx )? Also contained on the website is a full list of online references, which supplement the book in question ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride-refs.html ). This would be a far more productive approach.

  52. #52 Common Sense
    December 4, 2011

    Since figures show Tasmania which has had fluoridation for upwards of 50years has the worst dental fluorosis in Australia. Melbourne is complaining that thyroid, diabetes,obesity, heart probs in babies and cancer figures are up. Could it be chemicals causing these problems? Australia buys in Chinese “hydrofluorosilicic acid” and dumps it in Queenslands water, I would like there to be chemical toxicity tests made available. Since the only blood tests are those carried out by the very people who inject this stuff into the water, how can we see integrity or indeed, have trust in our governments?? If it is so good for us, what is the need for governments to safeguard themselves against litigation? Who pays, Who gains? Follow the dollars. Stop bickering children, the above blogs would cause anyone to vomit.

  53. #53 Humane Sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    It’s interesting to see that those so adamant they won’t read Paul’s book, are so quick to throw vitrole on a Professor with a PhD in Chemistry http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/paul_connett And yet these same arrogant, spiteful tongued folk give few references to their opionionated views. ‘The Case Against Fluoride’ gives more than EIGHTY TWO pages of Scientific references ie. http://www.fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride-refs.html

  54. #54 Connie
    December 4, 2011

    is this supposed to be a science blog? of course fluoridation is damaging people’s health! and what is more, you have no say in whether you want to be medicated or not! all water fluoridation should cease immediately, and those that do believe in fluoridation should be provided with the poison at no cost, so they can freely poison themselves and their families, but let the rest of us have the choice to NOT ingest waste products from aluminum and fertilizer production.

  55. #55 Sandy
    December 4, 2011

    This article is clearly designed to ridicule scientists and doctors and established scientific studies which prove fluoridation is harmful, so people are deterred from looking at the truth. But there is a mountain of credible evidence showing ingestion of fluoride is harmful to health… Fluoride inhibits enzyme activity in every cell of your body, affecting digestion, proper bone formation, brain function, endocrine function… and it creates nervous system disturbances… That’s why they use fluoride to fumigate produce and kill insects, to kill rats and mice etc. It attacks their central nervous system. That is what fluoride does. FACT. It is an S6-S7 poison. Look up the chemcistry for yourself. Ingesting small amounts of fluoride over time ends up being more toxic than if you were to have one high dose, because fluoride accumulates. The older you get the more your body tissues (the calcified parts) absorb and store fluoride. There is a reason that in the 40’s they used to call it ‘The Devil’s Element’. The writer of this article obviously is also not aware that practitioners of naturopathy and chiropractic have to study longer than allopathic (drug) doctors in the area of anatomy, toxic elements and nutrition. Just to educate the writer,these disciplines are taught in university degree courses: Chiropractic Science Degree – Macquarie University: http://courses.mq.edu.au/2012/Undergraduate/Degree/Bachelor+of+Chiropractic+Science

    Bachelor of Clinical Sciences (Naturopathy) Degree – Southern Cross University: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/hahs/index.php/4/

    I believe the correct term for this article writer is a ‘shill’. They are paid to spread disinformation for the benefit of vested commercial interests, and usually use techniques such as ridicule, but with no scientific backup or proof in their statements. Don’t give them any credence. Just understand how ridiculous their comments really are… and move on.

  56. #56 NJ
    December 4, 2011

    Oh, dear, someone left the gate open over the asylum again…

  57. #57 Alison
    December 4, 2011

    of course fluoridation is damaging people’s health
    citations needed…

  58. #58 Krebiozen
    December 4, 2011

    Humane Sorrows #250,

    You linked to a blog that helpfully shows a lot of analyses of the concentrated sodium fluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to the water supply in Adelaide. This interested me as I spent several years working in labs that measured heavy metal concentrations, among other things, in human blood and urine.

    The amount of heavy metals and other contaminants they found in the fluoride concentrate is tiny, and once it had been diluted 1 in 200,000 in tap water to give a fluoride concentration of 1 mg/L, heavy metal concentrations would be well below the safety limits for drinking water, as shown on the analysis sheets themselves. For example the first set of results shows total heavy metals in the concentrate of 26.58 milligrams per liter with a safety limit of less than 200 milligrams per liter. In the final drinking water this would give a concentration of 0.1329 micrograms per liter (there are 1000 micrograms to a milligram) with a safety limit of 1 microgram per liter.

    The highest level of mercury found was is 7.9 milligrams per liter in the concentrate (most were much lower), which when diluted would be 0.0395 micrograms per liter. An average kilogram of tuna contains 760 micrograms of mercury (the EPA safety limit is 1000 micrograms mercury per kilogram of fish, though there have been calls for it to be lowered to 300 micrograms per kilogram), so there is nearly 20,000 times as much mercury in tuna as there is in the same weight of Adelaide drinking water due to fluoridation. To put this into perspective, you would have to drink 2000 liters of Adelaide water to ingest as much mercury as there is in 100 grams (about 4 ounces) of tuna.

    I can’t see any level of contamination of any contaminant on any of the analysis sheets that exceeds or even comes close to the safety limits. When you consider that such safety limits usually have a factor of at least 10 and sometimes more built into them, I would suggest that the drinking water in Adelaide is perfectly safe to drink.

    I honestly don’t understand what you are so concerned about.

  59. #59 humane sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    NJ – Oh, what – is the NHMRC here?! And I concur — yes, you personally are showing your true asylum colours, eh! The Asylum of spiteful words, of lies and propaganda is alive and well. If you wish to heap scorn, and point your fingers, go ahead. You know, sticks and stones and all that…. But we can see clearly that you have not demonstrated any solid, factual, evidence of the peer reviewed papers of longterm SAFETY DATA of ingesting an S7 poison, a known, banned neurotoxin – no, you’ve not provided anything of note with proper sources, references and SCIENCE. All you’ve personally shown everyone, is your ability to write immaturely with a spiteful, arrogant and nasty tone. Grow up – go get a set of balls; and, show us how rational – not dumb – you could be. Those who have written with sources, are to be commended, for at the very least, being scientific (which is of course, what this article writer is
    whining about).

  60. #60 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    December 4, 2011

    Golly, humane sorrows, that seems like an awfully nasty, spiteful response.

    I took a quick look through several of the references cited in ‘The Case Against Fluoridation’ – none of the ones I looked at said that water fluoridation was dangerous. Could you take a second to comment on which of those supports the anti-fluoride thesis? Thanks.

  61. #61 Lawrence
    December 4, 2011

    Wow – Australia does have its share of nuts, doesn’t it?

  62. #62 NJ
    December 4, 2011

    humane sorrows @ 258:

    Grow up – go get a set of balls

    Mine are in their biologically evolved place; the same cannot be said for your brains.

    As the movie clips above illustrate (in this year old post), anti-fluoridation crankery was a staple of 1950’s John Birchery. And as the text of the post demonstrated, there has been no serious challenge to the utility of water fluoridation in the more than half-century since.

    What there has been is the low background noise of a few conspiracy nuts. As illustrated by the posts that reactivated this thread and, well, you.

    So, go back to playing with your beads, child, and leave the science understanding to those of us who can do so. There’s a good chap now.

  63. #63 Chris
    December 4, 2011

    In the American Southwest there is lots of natural fluoride in the ground water. Many municipal water systems actually remove some of it to a level that will not cause brown stains on teeth.

    Since much of Australia has similar dry areas, I wonder how much fluoride is in their ground water?

  64. #64 Krebiozen
    December 4, 2011

    I have a comment in moderation pointing out that the analyses on the blog Humane Sorrows links to shows that levels of heavy metals and other contaminants in Adelaide water due to added fluoride are all well within safety limits.

  65. #65 Common Sense
    December 4, 2011

    Forget all the sciences on both sides, answer me this question, why do we have to pay for and be medicated with a neurotoxic waste product if it isn’t all about lining someones’s pockets? Spillages and overdosing has been documented. When it was first placed in our watersupply, when it was possible to get an unbiased reading. 250mls in a cup of tea which I sent for testing independently came back at 2ppm. I don’t think this was ideal!

  66. #66 Narad
    December 4, 2011

    250mls in a cup of tea which I sent for testing independently came back at 2ppm. I don’t think this was ideal!

    And why, pray tell, would you send brewed tea for “testing independently”? Oh, right.

  67. #67 Andrew
    December 4, 2011

    “Forget all the sciences on both sides”

    No, thank you.

  68. #68 Humane Sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    Regarding the Australian Government documents from the blog, the ‘safety’ dose on ingesting Mercury on a daily basis is 0.002mg/l http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/mercury.cfm#four – the FOI documents show ranges from .067 to 7.9 mg/l And, come to think of it, since when was there a ‘safety’ limit on drinking Uranium? And does one still wonder why we are in epidemic proportions of Alzheimers, given the high analyses of Aluminium per litre? As for the ‘science’ angle – I think you will find, if you read the book written by Professor Paul Connett (who holds a PhD in Chemistry), that it is rooted in Science. So hold off your comments, until you can provide a written Scientific response to that said book. As for the comment of ‘no serious challenge’ to the utility of water fluoridation… LOL! China, Belgium (who don’t fluoridate their own water), sell their waste to the (now dumber) Aussies to drink; most of Europe have banned fluoridation; and the USA is removing fluoridation schemes at a rate of one to three cities/towns a WEEK http://www.fluoridealert.org/ Why? It’s an archaic, undemocratic, and dangerous practice. Additionally, caries can not be prevented by ingesting an industrial waste product – but stop eating white sugar and flour in the vast quantities people lazily choose to ingest, and dental health improves dramatically – NOT dependent on how rich or poor one is. But, until a written Scientific response is given by all those who have not bothered to read Professor Connett’s book, I’m wasting my cyber chat time. But good luck – you’re still going to have to handle the fact that you’re not on the right side of history any longer. Science has proven that, time and again. Truth is, truth, no matter how unpalatable. Upholding the industrial revolution’s solution to how to cheaply dump waste chemical products, by putting them into our drinking water – well, that’s not a very clever solution at all considering all the damage it is doing to our species, and the environment. Why, the Australian TGA cannot even provide safety data (as there is none) on ‘fluoride’ (a known neurotoxin, an S7 poison); and have never approved ‘fluoride’ for human consumption. Smacks of corruption don’t you think? But for all of you who still go on about the merits of S7 in our drinking water, turn a blind eye. Go back to sleep. When the whole planet has been chemically poisoned, the air, water and earth no longer livable, maybe our grandchildren might finally ‘get it’. And curse those who did nothing but uphold the chemical company agenda’s.

  69. #69 Krebiozen
    December 4, 2011

    Narad,

    And why, pray tell, would you send brewed tea for “testing independently”?

    It’s not as if tea naturally contains high concentrations of fluoride, is it? What’s that? Brewed black tea may contain up to 9 milligrams of fluoride per liter?

    I’d say 2ppm, which is the same as 2 milligrams per liter, is a low value for brewed tea. I prefer high-fluoride tea myself, as I live in an area with low natural fluoride levels in the water and no fluoridation.

    By all means argue the evidence about of fluoride and dental caries, possible toxicity and the ethics of mass medication, but please don’t invent heavy metal poisoning, or claim that your water has too much fluoride in it when you have contaminated it with fluoride-containing tea.

  70. #70 Humane Sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    Heavy metals ACCUMULATE, even in tiny amounts (since when did any heavy metal be ‘healthy’ or safe’ to ingest?) – these build up in the body. Disease rates in Australia are through-the-roof, rampant. USA is off the charts full of disease. Join the dots. Melbourne’s drinking water is both unpalatable and, highly chemicalised: http://www.jaymahcreationsaustralia.com/healthwarnings.htm
    The bottom line is, ‘follow the money trail’. The governments that continue to put chemicals in water to dispose of waste products cheaply, cannot provide the long-term safety data. Full, stop. And, why should I be forced to drink an S7, with mercury, aluminium, cadmium, uranium and lead – in ANY quantity? Explain to me this as being a ‘good thing’??? And if it’s hot weather, I might drink twice or thrice or more, the advised ‘safe’ limit of 1mg/l fluoride a day ie. the DOSE cannot be measured or monitored adequately. Those drinking more water, get bigger doses of this toxin. And, who is checking the population anyway? Too much of a ‘one size fits all’ plan of attack; but lots of pandering to those who are too lazy to clean up their diet, and not take any care to what they put in their mouths. Answer these questions scientifically, and you may have a case that is credible. Until then, the lack of ethics and lack of safety data does not stack up, credibly. And just because something has been done for fifty years, does not mean it is ‘safe’, or, ‘effective’, when so much of the Science says, otherwise. Bring back the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Our children’s brains, deserve better than a daily dose from tap water (and all things made of tap water) of known neuro-toxins.

  71. #71 Narad
    December 4, 2011

    Heavy metals ACCUMULATE, even in tiny amounts (since when did any heavy metal be ‘healthy’ or safe’ to ingest?) – these build up in the body. Disease rates in Australia are through-the-roof, rampant.

    Yah, that fourth-highest life expectancy in the world is a veritable Götterdämmerung. Are you peddling something or just lonely?

  72. #72 Lawrence
    December 4, 2011

    Deja Vu all over again – didn’t we go through all of this last year at some point (need to use the search function).

    Not only in the Science there, but it has been done to death – it really is just a few cranks that keep this thing alive.

  73. #73 novalox
    December 4, 2011

    @(in)humane sorrow

    [citation please] from a journal, not a crank website, or you are just an idiot crank.

    Actually, you probably are, by necroing a year-old thread.

  74. #74 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    December 4, 2011

    You know you’re dealing with totally ignorant morons when they call aluminum a “heavy metal”, or think there’s any way to avoid drinking the third most common element in the earth’s crust after it’s filtered through clay (largely aluminum), or breathing it as part of the trillions of dust (largely clay) particles you take in with each lungful.

    And the argument is really only a little less stupid with most of the other elements they want to demonize. Yes, cadmium is bad and so is lead—and we try our best to keep them out of the air and water. What percentage of antifluoridation nutjobs buy tetraethyl lead additives to put in their gasoline? A higher percentage than the general population, I’ll bet—unleaded gasoline is a wimpy liberal commie plot, just like phasing out incandescent light bulbs….

  75. #75 Narad
    December 4, 2011

    Oh, I’ll defend incandescent bulbs on a churlish level. I’m so f*cking energy-efficient that I feel perfectly entitled to choose my own illumination source. What we need is LICENSES! Yah, that’s it. You have to earn your bulbs.

  76. #76 herr doktor bimler
    December 4, 2011

    when it was possible to get an unbiased reading. 250mls in a cup of tea which I sent for testing independently came back at 2ppm

    So it’s not possible to get “an unbiased reading” now?
    There are mail-order testing scams who can be trusted to report a scary list of high levels of toxins in whatever sample is sent to them (+ $$$). But such companies close down; or are Suppressed by the Authorities (take your pick).

    lots of pandering to those who are too lazy to clean up their diet, and not take any care to what they put in their mouths

    This contempt for the non-phobic majority of the population comes from someone who is too lazy to catch rainwater, and instead expects the municipal authorities to provide tap-water that meet his or her exact specifications.

  77. #77 alison
    December 4, 2011

    @265 – er, you do know that tea (Camellia sinensis)contains small but measurable amounts of fluoride, don’t you? (In the form of sodium monofluoroacetate…)

  78. #78 Chemmomo
    December 4, 2011

    Humane Sorrows

    Heavy metals ACCUMULATE

    I thought we were talking about FLUORIDE.

    Since when is fluoride a metal?

    Please check your periodic table.

  79. #79 Narad
    December 4, 2011

    This contempt for the non-phobic majority of the population comes from someone who is too lazy to catch rainwater

    I think all non-brainwashed people are well aware of how easy it is to mix fluoride into jet fuel and thus use chemtrails as a dispersal mechanism to eliminate this freedom vector.

  80. #80 herr doktor bimler
    December 4, 2011

    you do know that tea (Camellia sinensis)contains small but measurable amounts of fluoride, don’t you? (In the form of sodium monofluoroacetate…)

    Nonsense! Next Alison will be telling us that 1080 poison is natural and biodegradable.

  81. #81 Robert G
    December 4, 2011

    RE: Water fluoridation chemicals –

    Despite many attempts by researchers to acquire the evidence from health authorities that the industrial-grade silicofluoride chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies have been adequately tested for safety for long-term ingestion by humans, they have been unable to do so. The chemical manufacturers (such as Incitec Pivot Limited) have also failed to provide this data, instead shifting the issue to third parties, who in turn cannot provide the data, thus maintaining a cycle of “oh, we don’t have it, try those guys; maybe they have it… oh, no, we don’t have it; ask these guys… and so on.” Here are some quotes and links below that shed some light on the issue:

    “Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer […] Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans […] Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether.”
    http://www.slweb.org/limeback.html

    The EPA admits to having no studies on the long-term Health Effects of Silicofluorides:
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/images/letters/EPA-Masters.jpg

    Further reading:

    Dr. Connett et al cover the silicofluoride issue in The Case Against Fluoride ( ISBN: 9781603582872 ). See: pp. 16–22
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DEqDaoNTo2IC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Also see:

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/chemicals-in-fluoridate-water.aspx
    http://www.fluoride-journal.com/01-34-3/343-161.pdf
    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridestatement.htm
    http://dianabuckland.webs.com/nosafetydatafl.htm

    Potential effects of extremely low doses of toxins on the brain:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4072416559052593081

  82. #82 NJ
    December 4, 2011

    Yeah, if you follow the link that ‘Humane Sorrows’ has, it leads to a Website that includes (in addition to the fluoride crankdom) a whole section on…you guessed it…mercury in vaccines and autism.

    Crank magnetism. Shocked, shocked we all are!

  83. #83 Denice Walter
    December 4, 2011

    Let me see if I have this straight, according to alt med, vaccines are loaded with Hg and Al, chicken drenched with arsenic, and tea has (( shudder)) fluoride. Based on my patterns of consumption, I should be dead.

  84. #84 Humane Sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    Krebiozen #258 & 264
    Chemmomo #276

    Where are your source references to your Mercury statement ? We’d love to see them.

    The EPA safety limit for Arsenic is ZERO for human consumption: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DEqDaoNTo2IC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false p.22

    As for Lead? Fluoride increases the uptake of lead into children’s brains: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DEqDaoNTo2IC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 22

    Fluoride has a known link to Alzheimers ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/ pt.6 ) as it increases the uptake of aluminium (and I never said specifically, that Aluminium was a ‘heavy metal’ – I made a generalised comment about all of the heavy metals found within the analyses).

    The point is, to be DELIBERATELY ADDING these heavy (or otherwise) metals to our drinking water supplies, is, WRONG.

    Until the safety data for long term ingestion of sodium silicofluoride, sodium fluoride and hydrofluorosilic acid is done and transparently disseminated, along with approval by the (Australian) TGA for human consumption (which currently, fluoride has not been), we are deeply deluded to the lie perpetuated, that fluoride is ‘safe’.

  85. #85 Humane Sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    Tell us all herr doktor bimler, please, we’re all itching to see YOUR REFERENCES that vaccines are entirely ‘safe’. The website you mention gives articles of interest. It does not state either way, what a person must think – only gives information for further research. So, your shilldom, doesn’t wash for any sensible discussion. Give us YOUR peer reviewed sources that mercury (Thimersirol ), and all vaccines, are safe for all (see, http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf p.10 ). Until then, you don’t make any sense at all. What credentials do you have, to make such statements? Are you a Toxicologist? Better still, give us a written Scientific response to this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4072416559052593081

  86. #86 Narad
    December 4, 2011

    Based on my patterns of consumption, I should be dead.

    Have you contemplated the possibility that you already are, but the worldly fluoride poisoning of your pineal gland and resulting vibratory toxicity* are impeding your ability to effectively travel astrally to your final destination with the Star Beings? We all know what happened to Bill Bixby in Steambath.

    * PDF warning.

  87. #87 Humane Sorrows
    December 4, 2011

    Page one, only: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/biblio.html

    Have any of the ‘pro’s, looked over this (first page) and made written Scientific responses?

    mmmmmm……

  88. #88 Narad
    December 4, 2011

    Did someone order a backhoe?

  89. #89 Lawrence
    December 4, 2011

    Wow – another one of these wackos – referencing the Geiers no less….the search function on here is a wonderful thing.

  90. #90 Militant Agnostic
    December 4, 2011

    Humane Sorryass @281 gives us a reference to JPANDS (a reich wing fundamentalist christian crank journal) and a google video in one comment. Someone must have whackaloon bingo by now unless we are playing to blackout.

  91. #91 Krebiozen
    December 4, 2011

    Humane Sorrows,

    the ‘safety’ dose on ingesting Mercury on a daily basis is 0.002mg/l – the FOI documents show ranges from .067 to 7.9 mg/l

    You have misunderstood this – there is 7.9 mg/L mercury in the fluoride concentrate that is then diluted 1 part in 200,000 parts of water. No one is going to drink 20% hydrofluorosilicic acid! So the water that comes out of your tap will have 0.00004 mg/L of mercury in it, 50 times lower than the EPA safety limit.

    Where are your source references to your Mercury statement ? We’d love to see them.

    They are on the analyses of the fluoride concentrates you linked to, on the right hand side of the page as I explained – for mercury that limit is less than 200 mg/L in the concentrate, equating to 0.001 mg/L once diluted in tap water – they clearly use safety levels standards lower than the EPA does. The numbers on the right are the safety limits, the numbers on the left are the actual concentrations found. Notice that they are all well within the safety limits.

    You can check the safe limits on the EPA website if you want. EPA action limits in drinking water are 2 micrograms per liter for mercury as you stated above – maximum in fluoridated tap water from your figures is 0.04 micrograms per liter.

    The other heavy metals and other contaminants are also well within safety limits once diluted.

  92. #92 Chemmomo
    December 4, 2011

    Humane Sorrows,
    you missed my point. How can I take any of your science seriously when you persist in calling fluoride a metal? Do you expect me to believe that you understand how the EPA sets safety limits for human consumption when you clearly don’t understand one of the simplest concepts in chemistry?

  93. #93 Krebiozen
    December 4, 2011

    Humane Sorrows,

    The EPA safety limit for Arsenic is ZERO for human consumption:

    Not according to the EPA on their website:

    EPA has set the arsenic standard for drinking water at .010 parts per million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers served by public water systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic.

    Highest concentration in the fluoride concentrate in the FOI documents was 5.2 mg/L which once diluted in tap water equates to 0.000026 parts per million, or 0.026 parts per billion, again well within EPA safety limits.

  94. #94 Conspiracy is Everywhere
    December 4, 2011

    It’s awfully convenient that a supposedly anti-fluoride activist makes such weak arguments for the cause – almost as if Orac is paying someone to make anti-fluoride folks look foolish. If “Human Sorrows” keeps coming back with unconvincing arguments, we’ll know for sure that she’s an undercover pro-fluoride shill (the alternative – that there are no convincing anti-fluoride arguments is technically possible, but how likely is that?)

  95. #95 Narad
    December 4, 2011

    How can I take any of your science seriously when you persist in calling fluoride a metal?

    Perhaps it’s the astronomical sense. Pardon me for a moment. (BWAAAHAHAA. Ooh. No, wait, no… AAAAHAHAHA AIYEEEEEEE… heh, phew, pant. In, out, in out.) This really does have Flaky Foont vs. Mr. Natural written all over it.

  96. #96 Denice Walter
    December 4, 2011

    @ Narad:
    Not dead but remarkably well-preserved.
    One of the benefits of shill-dom ( minion-hood?)- they can’t have *us* going around dying now, could they: it would be bad for business.

  97. #97 herr doktor bimler
    December 4, 2011

    Tell us all herr doktor bimler, please, we’re all itching to see YOUR REFERENCES that vaccines are entirely ‘safe’. The website you mention gives articles of interest.

    Possibly you are confusing me with Krebiozen. I grant that the names are similar.

  98. #98 lilady
    December 5, 2011

    @ Human Sorrows: Why don’t you “Google” Mark and David Geier and tell us what you think of their treatment of children with autism. What suggestions would you make for “natural” chelation…instead of that nasty chemical that chemically castrated the kids.

    Maybe you want to consult the JPANDS site…after all there is an interesting article about the Fuehrer’s doctor who was executed after the war. It’s a very interesting analogy, claiming that physicians who are for a national health care plan and care for patients on Medicare are on a par with the Third Reich physicians, found guilty of crimes against humanity.

  99. #99 Alison
    December 5, 2011

    Herr Doktor @ 280: you know me too well… http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2009/11/topical-1080.shtml

  100. #100 Krebiozen
    December 5, 2011

    Some of you may have missed the link posted by Humane Sorrows at #250. It is to a blog where someone has posted scans of chemical analysis reports of contaminants including heavy metals found in the hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluoride that are used to fluoridate water in Adelaide. These were obtained under a freedom of information request. The highest values found were 7.9 mg/L mercury, 5.2 mg/L arsenic and less than 2 mg/L lead, with a maximum total heavy metals of 65.9 mg/L.

    Humane Sorrows appears to have mistaken these reports for reports of actual water quality, as s/he has compared them to the EPA limits for drinking water. For example the highest amount of mercury was 7.9 mg/L in the concentrate, and the EPA drinking water safety limit is 0.001 mg/L mercury. In fact this material is greatly diluted before reaching anyone’s tap. The hydrofluorosilicic acid is 20% (20 grams per 100 mL = 200 g/L = 200,000 mg/L), so it has to be diluted 1 in 200,000 to get the required 1 mg/L fluoride. The sodium fluoride requires a similar level of dilution. Once diluted all the contaminants are at a concentration far below the safety limits.

    I thought it was interesting to see how a fluoridation myth appears to have started. Someone has made a FOI request and then misinterpreted the data they obtained, believing they have uncovered an evil plot to poison the citizens of Adelaide with heavy metals. I am sure this misinformation has been spread far and wide and we will continue to see it resurface for years to come.

    The truth is they are a factor of 200,000 out. You can see an analysis of the actual water that comes out of the taps in Adelaide in a spreadsheet here. The heavy metal levels look very similar to those in my drinking water in London UK, which is not fluoridated.

  101. #101 David Marjanović
    December 5, 2011

    Fluoride inhibits enzyme activity in every cell of your body, affecting digestion, proper bone formation, brain function, endocrine function… and it creates nervous system disturbances… That’s why they use fluoride to fumigate produce and kill insects, to kill rats and mice etc.

    That’s fluorine, not fluoride.

    By your logic, salt (sodium chloride) is a poison gas (chlorine), and burnt limestone (calcium oxide) is air (oxygen).

    Humane Sorrows,
    you missed my point. How can I take any of your science seriously when you persist in calling fluoride a metal? Do you expect me to believe that you understand how the EPA sets safety limits for human consumption when you clearly don’t understand one of the simplest concepts in chemistry?

    Seconded.

  102. #102 Prometheus
    December 5, 2011

    David Marjanovic (#301):

    “That’s fluorine, not fluoride.”

    Fluoride ion is a pretty broad-spectrum enzyme inhibitor, which is why it is used in certain blood collection vials. That’s also why sodium fluoride is a potent insecticide, rat poison, etc. Even fluoridated toothpaste can be deadly, if you can gag down enough of it.

    Fluorine isn’t used as much, since it is a highly reactive gas and dangerous to transport and work with.

    Of course, at low levels, like what you might receive from fluoridated tap water, it has no significant effect on enzyme function (all life on the planet has evolved to tolerate low levels of fluoride, not to mention mercury, arsenic and lead, as they are all widely distributed).

    At these low levels, fluoride can substitute for hydroxyl in the hydroxyapatite of bones and teeth, converting them partially to fluoroapatite, which is a bit harder and denser. Fluoroapatite also has the useful property – for teeth – of resisting attack by acid better than hydroxyapatite.

    As is typical, the anti-fluoridation crowd has missed the vital point that “poison” depends on the dose. Water, salt, even oxygen can be toxic in high doses.

    Prometheus

  103. #103 Krebiozen
    December 5, 2011

    David Marjanović,

    That’s fluorine, not fluoride.

    To be fair to Humane Sorrows, fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor, but in higher concentrations than you find in tap water. It’s used in blood collection bottles for glucose measurement, as it inhibits enolase, thus preventing glycolysis by blood cells. There is 10 mg of potassium fluoride in a 5 ml blood bottle, giving a fluoride concentration of 2000 mg/L, which is 2000 times the tap water fluoridation target of 1 mg/L.

    I can’t find any experiments showing that any enzyme is inhibited by the levels of fluoride found in the serum of rats given even 200 mg/L fluoride in their drinking water (about 0.6 mg/L). Clearly serum levels in humans drinking fluoridated water at 1 mg/L will be much lower. Maybe Humane Sorrows can enlighten me.

  104. #104 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    David Marjanović – You have CLEARLY NOT READ my posts CORRECTLY. I’ve never once said fluoride was a ‘heavy metal’. BUT, Fluoride, what I have said is, that when bagged/scraped from the phosphate smoke stacks, fluoride comes mixed with many heavy metals, as indicated in the blog post here:http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/ If you still feel that ‘fluoride’ is somehow ‘pure’, and good for everyone (as if we’re just walking sets of teeth only, without any other soft tissues this stuff will be absorbed into) well, YOUR ‘science’, is pure quackery! LOL!

    “Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer […] Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans […] Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether.”
    http://www.slweb.org/limeback.html

    The EPA admits to having no studies on the long-term Health Effects of Silicofluorides:
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/images/letters/EPA-Masters.jpg

    Krebiozen – By the way, this comment, “Someone has made a FOI request and then misinterpreted the data they obtained, believing they have uncovered an evil plot to poison the citizens of Adelaide with heavy metals. I am sure this misinformation has been spread far and wide and we will continue to see it resurface for years to come” is a very misplaced comment ie. the FOI documents were obtained by Independent politician, the Hon. Ann Bressington, MLC (SA), and, Dr Andrew Harms (Ex President of the SA Dental Association) – and the ‘interpretation’ is very clear ie. this stuff IS in our drinking water, as part of the mix from the bagged chemicals of ‘fluoride’ coming from either Incitec Pivot, or, Shanghai Chemicals (China) – this is not some ‘mistaken’ interpretation. AND, where, anywhere, is there a written ‘comparison’ to the EPA standards? ?? WHAT? Where? You are making this stuff up now.

    And don’t you love how each month the water was tested, the chemical levels VARY WIDELY ie. we are being dosed inconsistently, each month. So, what will the doses be each day, for everyone ie. including little babies, kidney patients, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    I’m sure many people would be disgusted to be drinking ANY quantities of Aluminium, Arsenic, Mercury, Lead and URANIUM in small quantities, knowing that this stuff is culmulative poison – for that IS what we are being forced to deal with as ‘water quality’ (putrid, eh!) on a daily basis. And if you still have a problem with these FACTS, I suggest you deal with both these reputable people.

    No, there is no ‘conspiracy’. Just plain FACTS. And just in case you cannot see the wood for the trees, most people who have come into this issue have done their research to find out the Truth of this chemical mix, and don’t get paid to promote such poisons like the industries. The people who are ‘anti’, have done hard research to seek to find out the Truth which is done in their own time, unpaid, with no vested interests.

    FACT: Big Industry is dumping their phosphate/fluoride wastes into our drinking water, despite it being illegal to dump it in the ocean, rivers, or, land. But bag up the smokestack chemicals, and sell it, and it magically becomes a ‘product, to be processed by our kidneys. Sheesh.

    You might like to read the following, from another poster, on another thread:

    Despite many attempts by researchers to acquire the evidence from health authorities that the industrial-grade silicofluoride chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies have been adequately tested for safety for long-term ingestion by humans, they have been unable to do so. The chemical manufacturers (such as Incitec Pivot Limited) have also failed to provide this data, instead shifting the issue to third parties, who in turn cannot provide the data, thus maintaining a cycle of “oh, we don’t have it, try those guys; maybe they have it… oh, no, we don’t have it; ask these guys… and so on.” Here are some quotes and links below that shed some light on the issue:

    Further reading:

    Dr. Connett et al cover the silicofluoride issue in The Case Against Fluoride ( ISBN: 9781603582872 ). See: pp. 16–22
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DEqDaoNTo2IC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Also see:

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/chemicals-in-fluoridate-water.aspx
    http://www.fluoride-journal.com/01-34-3/343-161.pdf
    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridestatement.htm
    http://dianabuckland.webs.com/nosafetydatafl.htm

    Potential effects of extremely low doses of toxins on the brain:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4072416559052593081

    Posted by: Robert G | December 4, 2011 4:50 PM
    SOURCE thread: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/11/the_case_against_flouride.php

  105. #105 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011
  106. #106 Gray Falcon
    December 6, 2011

    Humane Sorrows, you’ve misidentified a halide as a metal, and confused compounds with their elemental components. For comparison purposes, that’s equivalent to getting advice on auto repair from someone who doesn’t know what an engine is.

  107. #107 Prometheus
    December 6, 2011

    “Humane Sorrows” (#304):

    “The chemicals used in fluoridation are:

    Yes, we know – all very scary chemical names, but did you notice the concentrations as discussed above? Here’s a hint: very few people on this ‘blog are going to run shrieking to the bottled water because you link to a list of chemicals.

    Next, I expect we’ll hear a lecture on “purity of essence”.

    Back to you, General Ripper.

    Prometheus

  108. #108 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    You know, anyone who still thinks S7 (HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID) is good for you… in any form, name, colour of the bag, is simply, mad:

    http://data.rmt.com.au/msds/3082468.pdf

  109. #109 Gray Falcon
    December 6, 2011

    You mistook a gas for a metal. You don’t get madder than that.

  110. #110 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    ‘concentrations’ Do you forget, that fluoride is not eliminated at all in children; and only 50% in a healthy adult? So, if the dose is not able to be adequately monitored from drinks, foods, showering (absorbing via the skin transdermally), etc in this stuff, how can you be such experts in all people being kept, ‘safe’? Pure, nonsense. This stuff is no good at all, for babies: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/index.html

    Further reading: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/acute.aspx

  111. #111 Gray Falcon
    December 6, 2011

    So, by your logic, we should all be dead now. Fluoride salts exist in nature.

  112. #112 Prometheus
    December 6, 2011

    Anyone who still thinks cobalt chloride is good for you …

    http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0783.htm

    may be “simply mad”, although it is required (the cobalt, at least, in micronutrient amounts) by all organisms on the planet.

    The dose makes the poison: too much cobalt = dead; not enough cobalt = just as dead.

    Prometheus

  113. #113 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    “Fluoride salts exist in nature.”

    Hydrofluoroslicic acid does not exist in nature – it is scrubbed from the smokestacks of the Aluminium/Phosphate industry. Neither, Silicofluorides. Or, sodium fluoride.

    Calcium fluoride does exist ‘in nature’, but causes great misery:http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fluorosis/index.html

    Why are you all upholding the dosing of the masses with S7? Have you pockets to line by upholding these lazy chemical companies that care not a hoot for anyone but themselves?

    Guess you’ll be telling us all that fluorosis is ok, and that it’s ‘only cosmetic’ (would you like it on your teeth?) – instead of the tell-tale sign one has overdosed on fluoride? http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/mild.html

  114. #114 Gray Falcon
    December 6, 2011

    I’m more willing to trust scientists who know what they’re doing over someone who consistently fails to understand the most basic of concepts. Seriously, if dosage doesn’t matter, then stop breathing. At the right concentration, oxygen can be toxic.

  115. #115 Narad
    December 6, 2011

    Hydrofluoroslicic acid does not exist in nature – it is scrubbed from the smokestacks of the Aluminium/Phosphate industry. Neither, Silicofluorides. Or, sodium fluoride.

    Leaving aside the issue of what you think “in nature” means, what do you think villiaumite is?

  116. #116 herr doktor bimler
    December 6, 2011

    Has Humane Sorrows linked to *any* source outside the hermetic confines of ‘fluoridealert’?

  117. #117 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    herr doktor bimler Disputing the links from credible sources in a single site is no crime. Firstly, you will have to discredit the Science from the varied sources. Just because the database is extensive, and it is easier to find in one spot, does not make the information ‘wrong’ – you poor lad, you are really clutching at straws if this is your pathetic argument. Fluoride Alert is a vast compilation of reputable websites, articles, links, etc, to MANY other sites – and many people use the ease of the collations on this one site to find other many sites. Keeps life simple.

    But if you must, how about a just a few of these for more research:
    #1 is one of FAN’S compilations (oooooooooooo!) of MANY sites:
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/links.htm

    http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluoridesummary.htm

    http://muse.jhu.edu/search/results?search_id=2032197779&action=reload

  118. #118 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    It’s interesting how righteous most of the ‘pro’s are on this forum, to holding onto their opinions – amassing nit picking, instead of wholistic views. We are more than walking sets of teeth. Or are you all, toxicologists too?

    The bottom line is, fluoridation is banned in most other countries in Europe and China (these millions of people MUST all be ‘wrong’ though, eh?) due to a variety of reasons:

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.aspx

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00373.x/abstract;jsessionid=C9FAE58D64026DF0D5CC2C820389F025.d03t01

    The USA is VOTING (but we don’t have that luxury in Australia – no, it’s forced). In the Government’s infinite wisdom, they introduced legislation to protect themselves from litigation! Why, if fluoridation is so “safe and effective”?

    VICTORIA

    No person has any right of action against-

    (a) a water supply authority; or

    (b) a member of a water supply authority; or

    (c) a person acting under the direction of a water supply authority; or

    (d) a person acting on behalf of a water supply authority under a contract
    made between that authority and the person-

    in respect of anything done in regard to the fluoridation of a public water
    supply in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

    QUEENSLAND

    (1) This Act binds all persons, including the State.

    (2) However, nothing in this Act makes the State liable to be prosecuted for an offence.

    Just as well! With ALL THE spills, leaks, malfunctions and subsequent overdoses throughout the years, legal bills could easily skyrocket if anyone – heaven forbid – had to take ‘responsibility’ for an accident.) and tipping fluoridation out of their water, at a rapid rate (one to three cities a WEEK!): http://www.fluoridealert.org/

    Further reading: http://www.fluoridealert.org/rfw-nations.htm

    But of course, these links are found in one spot – the huge database at FluorideAlert.org. Collates most information, links, research, that is found worldwide, into one spot – oh, but that is such a sin, eh!

    Hang on to your fluoridation jobs ‘pro’s’ – whilst you can – the people don’t want fluoridation and the Science gives good reasons why not to support it.

    Sorry, fluoridation is outdated, based on fraudulent Science, and barbaric (forcing this, is unethical to say the least. If YOU want fluoride, go purchase some pharmaceutical grade fluoride pills for a few cents a bottle; but better still, I’m sure the fluoridation plants would be willing to sell you a bag or two of the industrial grade powder that we are currently drinking, that you can mix into your food and water – I believe Chinese fluoride is going cheap!). Forced ‘medication’ of industrial waste is unwanted by most people (ie. ‘fluoride is safe and effective’ is the line parroted by most pro’s, despite there being no long-term safety data ANYWHERE in the world).

    Another great article to read and debate with Dr Connett (IF you have the guts): http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm

    Until then, I’m waiting for one of you ‘pro’s’, to provide a written, Scientific, peer reviewed response to Professor Paul Connett’s book with the 88 pages of Scientific references: http://www.fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride-appendices.html It’s a painstakingly collated book. Let’s see you do the same, and painstakingly write your written response; or better still, publicly debate Professor Connett. We’ll have our camera’s waiting (or will you all get shy, and state that camera’s are somehow unscientific too? Put your faces to your names, and debate this issue, ethically, scientifically. Name your date and place, and I’m sure Professor Connett (with a PhD in Chemistry), amongst others, will show up). Or perhaps you’d like this guy instead: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2000/carlsson-cv.html

    Until then, there really is little left to say to all you pro’s – and you are welcome to nit-pick all you like; the fact remains, you are outnumbered and outclassed by those who have done their research, unpaid, and have decided for themselves, they don’t want rat poison in their drinking water. Dispute and nitpick that fact, now!

  119. #119 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    Some more external sources for you:

    “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”
    http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

    And specifically,

    Page 102: “Research is needed on fluoride plasma and bone concentrations in people with small to moderate changes in renal function as well as patients with serious renal deficiency. Other potentially sensitive populations should be evaluated, including the elderly, postmenopausal women, and people with altered acid-base balance.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=102

    Page 130: “More research is needed on the relation between fluoride exposure and dentin fluorosis and delayed tooth eruption patterns.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=130

    Page 180: “More research is needed on bone concentrations of fluoride in people with altered renal function, as well as other potentially sensitive populations… to better understand the risks of musculoskeletal effects in these populations.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=180

    Page 204: “A case-control study of the incidence of Downʼs syndrome in young women and fluoride exposure would be useful.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=204

    Page 223: “Additional studies of the relationship of the changes in the brain as they affect the hormonal and neuropeptide status of the body are needed. Such relationships should be studied in greater detail and under different environmental conditions.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=223

    “Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=223

    “Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short-and long-term memory.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=223

    Page 267: “The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=267

    Page 303: “It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=303

    “Epidemiologic studies should be carried out to determine whether there is a higher prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions… studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride… in drinking water.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=303

    “The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=303

    Page 338: “Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=338

    Now, if anyone feels they would like to take on the research gaps for all the above, from the National Academies of Sciences, they are welcome to do so. However, claiming fluoridation is completely ‘safe’, is deeply unethical until all these research gaps are filled. Until they are, fluoridation should be halted immediately due to these unknown factors.

    And please note, the above review calls for studies to be done down to one milligram per litre.

    (ps. I can’t see fluoridealert in sight! LOL! – but, if you are really interested in learning more about this report, I can’t help myself, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html [chuckle!])

    Stick this in your pipes and smoke away! Or perhaps, steam a little? LOL!

  120. #120 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    Gray Falcon – mistaken ‘gas for a metal’? What on earth are you ranting on about? Some generalised comment; or, are you just nit-picking because you are bored?

  121. #121 Narad
    December 6, 2011

    Tell us all again how NaF doesn’t occur in nature. The thoroughness of your research makes me quiver with anticipation.

  122. #122 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    Gray Falcon – mistaken ‘gas for a metal’? What on earth are you ranting on about? Some generalised comment; or, are you just nit-picking because you are bored?

    Prometheus – scary names don’t bother me (though your comment is very condescending – I am guessing you must be a toxicologist, with how you are assuming to know all about fluoride?).

    No, what definites’scares’ me, is ignorant, arrogant folk, inflicting their poisonous minds and actions, on the innocent. Stay out of MY water, as I didn’t want, don’t want, and never will want, your inflictions. And personally, if my teeth rot due to too much sugar and poor dental habits, that is my business (though all fillings I do have – poisonous mercury amalgam that I’ve slowly been replacing from a poor dentist I once had; the cavities formed despite over 30 years of drinking and ingesting fluoride, and an excellent healthy diet – this S7 IS corrosive to everything, and does NOT work).

    But, if you wish to debate Scientifically, or Ethically, cut out the sarcasm, and give us all your written Scientific response to Professor Paul Connett’s book, The Case Against Fluoride.

    Until you read the book and write your responses, whilst you are on this forum attacking those who have read the book, you are showing your shilldom, ignorance, arrogance and not much more – as far as I can see, very few of you have answered direct questions or research – just diverted away to small-minded pettiness.

    There are bigger men out there than most on this forum, doing their best to protect the vast majority of people – those that are unable to defend themselves from Big Industry corruption.

    I can see by your sarcasms, many of you are terrified you might lose your jobs IF someone tests your research, as humanity finally IS WAKING UP to the fraud of water fluoridation, aka, silicofluoride poisoning of our water supplies. Cheers, Humane.

  123. #123 Narad
    December 6, 2011

    Until you read the book and write your responses, whilst you are on this forum attacking those who have read the book, you are showing your shilldom, ignorance, arrogance and not much more – as far as I can see, very few of you have answered direct questions or research

    Wow, at least MJD had the poetry. Let’s see… direct questions, direct questions…. Oh, yeah, what happened to this joint?

    Heavy metals ACCUMULATE, even in tiny amounts (since when did any heavy metal be ‘healthy’ or safe’ to ingest?) – these build up in the body. Disease rates in Australia are through-the-roof, rampant.

    Fourth-highest what expectancy in the world, again?

    (In other news, yes, Nature also knows how to make H2SiF6 all by her lonesome, right where you’d expect it.)

  124. #124 Gray Falcon
    December 6, 2011

    You kept talking about “heavy metals” when our discussion was about fluoride, also, you explicitly tried to convince us that fluoride compounds were equivalent to fluorine gas in 255, which suggests gross incompetence or dishonesty. Your pick.

  125. #125 Humane Sorrows
    December 6, 2011

    Gray Falcon – If you are responding to my comment #322 or, any of my other comments, personally, I have never mentioned ‘gas’. And if I personally mentioned heavy metals, it was (in context), mentioned alongside water fluoride compounds, as per the FOI documents given in the link here: http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/ ie. heavy metals ARE found in the mix, along with water fluoridation chemicals.

    Comment 255, is another person. I suggest you stop calling me a liar, and grossly incompetent when I have not been with my comments. Get your facts right if you are going to say such things, as you show yourself to be truly, small, when wrong (but of course, will you apologise? Might be a big ‘big’ of you). cheers, Humane.

  126. #126 novalox
    December 6, 2011

    @(in)humane sorriness

    You definitely have provided some good laughs for me with your through incomprehension of basic chemistry, physiology, biology, basic reading comprehension, and lack of logic.

    Thanks for the unintentional comedy.

  127. #127 Humane Sorrows
    December 7, 2011

    novalox – glad you liked my postings…. but, specifics would be best.

  128. #128 novalox
    December 7, 2011

    Laughing…so….hard…. at (in)humane……..
    sorriness….idiocy….need…to…breathe….

  129. #129 Humane Sorrows
    December 7, 2011

    Novalox, you must be a ‘big’ man indeed, to laugh so hard at my efforts. Sources to your knowledge of my lack? Your credentials?

  130. #130 Humane Sorrows
    December 7, 2011

    Falcon Gray – “You kept talking about “heavy metals” when our discussion was about fluoride, also, you explicitly tried to convince us that fluoride compounds were equivalent to fluorine gas in 255, which suggests gross incompetence or dishonesty. Your pick.”

    Firstly, I think you’re confusing my post with someone else’s above, re: Gas.

    However, to re-state MY POINTS:

    – The most widely-used fluoridation chemicals are sodium fluorosilicate (NaSiF); and fluorosilicic acid (HSiF). Both pro and anti sources acknowledge this.
    http://www.health.vic.gov.au/environment/downloads/fluori_qa07.pdf (p. 9)
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/chemicals-in-fluoridate-water.aspx

    – These chemicals contain fluoride and other toxic contaminants, which I don’t believe should be added to water supplies in ANY AMOUNT.
    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridestatement.htm

    – These chemicals are industrial-grade, scrubbed from pollution control devices. So, they are literally industrial, hazardous waste products from industrial chemical companies.
    http://www.orica-chloralkali.com/index.asp?page=19
    http://www.incitecpivot.com.au/products_1.cfm

    – Health authorities, water authorities and the chemical manufacturers have been unable to provide adequate long-term health studies to prove the safety of these chemicals.

    These are my points in a nutshell.

  131. #131 Narad
    December 7, 2011

    Some more external sources for you:
    […]
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

    And specifically, [a 13-course copypasta degustation]

    Overlooked in this case of explosive quotarrhea is the simple observation that none of appears to really be apropos to fluoridated municipal water supplies at 0.7-1.2 mg/L. Oh, and as for this bit,

    And please note, the above review calls for studies to be done down to one milligram per litre.

    The relevant remark is

    The following research will be useful for filling those gaps and guiding revisions to the MCLG and SMCL for fluoride….

    • Studies of enamel fluorosis
    — Additional studies, including longitudinal studies, should be done in U.S. communities with water fluoride concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. These studies should focus on moderate and severe enamel fluorosis in relation to caries and in relation to psychological, behavioral, and social effects among affected children, their parents, and affected children after they become adults.

    Fluorosis. That’s it, not the unqualified grab-bag that H.S. happily attempted to insinuate.

  132. #132 Common Sense
    December 7, 2011

    http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/53/2/246.full.pdf+html

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215121918.htm
    Perhaps these links may help those who are wavering in their belief that “hydrofluorosilicic acid” is good for teeth. I do know we get ours from the chimney stacks of our fertiliser industry and it tears my skin about. I buy in drinking.cooking water, cannot afford whole house filter. Which is the problem for many people, we have to suffer the consequences.

  133. #133 novalox
    December 7, 2011

    Eeyup, I’m a bigger man/woman than (in)humane sorriness, that’s for certain.

    At least I know that fluorine isn’t a metal. That was an utter hoot.

    Your continual unintentional humor amuses me.

  134. #134 lilady
    December 7, 2011

    “– Health authorities, water authorities and the chemical manufacturers have been unable to provide adequate long-term health studies to prove the safety of these chemicals.

    These are my points in a nutshell.”

    @ Humane Sorrows: I read your first link “Water Fluoridation Questions & Answers” published by the Victoria, Australia government. The report you provided is replete with long-term health studies that PROVE the safety of these chemicals in the water supply.

    So, just because you have skewed thinking processes and a lively imagination about “conspiracies” regarding the role of government in public health initiatives…what, pray tell, makes you an expert?

  135. #135 lilady
    December 7, 2011

    I also perused Humane Sorrows second link to FAN (Fluoride Action Network) which is a crank anti-fluoride website run by Michael Connett…the son of Sorrow’s academia guru Professor Paul Connett. (Craziness doesn’t run in that family…it gallops)

  136. #136 Narad
    December 7, 2011

    These are my points in a nutshell.

    It’s amazing that you managed to expand this into four wordy items when you have exactly two points: (1) FLUORIDE IS TEH EVILZZ! (2) AND TOXINZZZ!

    Get over yourself. You hate water fluoridation, realize that almost nobody will take you seriously if you present this in its naked form, and thus tart it up with random blab about anything else scary-sounding you can lay your hands on.

  137. #137 Darryl Turner
    December 7, 2011

    This is how the proponents of fluoridaion work.

    http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/opposition.pdf

  138. #138 lilady
    December 7, 2011

    Quite an interesting link that you provided, Daryll Turner.

    I suppose “Sorrows” is the newly elected chapter president/media director of the Fluorophobics Society…hence the necromancing comments here.

  139. #139 Humane Sorrows
    December 7, 2011

    The TGA in Australia has never approved ‘fluoride’ for human consumption. Write to them yourselves – this task has already been done by other researchers in Australia – there is no data, anywhere, of longterm safety; or, approval for human consumption. See: http://dianabuckland.webs.com/nosafetydatafl.htm

    As for me – you have attempted to ridicule me personally, which is most unprofessional, no matter which side you are on. Whatever. Your scorn, won’t change the facts of the matter of S7 as a poison none of us can avoid – it is in everything made with, tap water (dosage cannot be monitored, and fluoride concentrates when boiled).

    However, know this: you lot, worldwide, are in the minority now – that is why fluoridation is falling so fast in the USA – people do not wish to be dosed with S7 industrial waste, no matter how you spin it.

    Attempting to denounce those who have done the Science, are researching the Science and uphold Science, will overcome all those upholding the chemical companies who act as if they have the God given right to continue to pollute the water supplies, the environment and all life that comes in contact with these poisons, without penalty.

    So, from me, you will hear no more – you are not worth my time. But a good thing to come out of this forum is, you have just shown all who are reading, the kind of people you are – and I’m sure I don’t need to say a single thing more — you’ve done that task quite nicely, all by yourselves, without my further comment.

    But one last reminder: you ‘pro fluoridites’ are still to complete the simple request of 1) firstly, reading Professor Connett’s book, and 2) write a Scientific review on that book.

    Until then, not reading, but denouncing, would get you kicked out of any Uni in the world. Funny how here, on this forum, you act like you’re the ‘big men’, but in truth, are little boys, who have yet to do their research on a single book. And people look up to you?? How very, very, sad.

    So for me, no more laughs will I give you (I hear a collective sigh of relief). Find another person to deride, without substantiating the evidence you are given, and requested to give. Bully boys, you will always be. Pseudo Scientists, you ARE. You will take those qualities with you, to your graves.

    I’m sure you will continue to destroy life by upholding, like some golden egg of magical powers, the silicofluoride poisons that corrode all they touches – including human soft tissue, and, teeth funnily enough).

    And let’s just forget the suffering of animals too, whilst you’re at it:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2827687.htm?site=ballarat

    Cheers, it’s been fun. Out. Humane Sorrows

  140. #140 lilady
    December 7, 2011

    “Until then, not reading, but denouncing, would get you kicked out of any Uni in the world. Funny how here, on this forum, you act like you’re the ‘big men’, but in truth, are little boys, who have yet to do their research on a single book. And people look up to you?? How very, very, sad.

    So for me, no more laughs will I give you (I hear a collective sigh of relief). Find another person to deride, without substantiating the evidence you are given, and requested to give. Bully boys, you will always be. Pseudo Scientists, you ARE. You will take those qualities with you, to your graves.”

    Sexist…I’m not a big man acting as a little boy…or a bully boy. I also never attended Google U…from whence you get all your education and I was never kicked out of university, either.

    I hope our discussions here didn’t contaminate your precious bodily fluids and perhaps they penetrated your anti-intellectual brain barrier.

    Try and get a life, first by getting an education so that you can begin to understand what real science is about and drop the attitude.

    Your last post about kangaroos being affected by industrial waste is a gem…it filled in my conspiracy bingo card.

  141. #141 herr doktor bimler
    December 7, 2011

    Humane Sorrows at #322:
    fluoridation is banned in most other countries in Europe and China

    I am pretty sure that even in parts of Europe where fluoridation is not mandatory, it is not actually banned and you are free to fluoridate your own water if you choose.

    Stay out of MY water
    Here’s the problem. You are living in Australia, an arid country where there are way too people living than the environment can possibly sustain. Consequently, tap water in cities like Melbourne must be treated to make it drinkable. Making the water drinkable is part of the public-health responsibilities of the municipal, state and federal governments, because without treatment it would be someone else’s urine from up-stream. You with me so far?

    What I’m saying is that the water is NOT YOURS. If you want your own water, collect feckin’ rain-water. Otherwise, shut the feck up.

    Another of the public-health responsibilities of the various governments is to minimise the money they spend on dental health. To this purpose, they have done various cost/benefit calculations and decided to add fluoride salts to the water supply.

    If you want them to change that policy, show them better calculations. Failing that, offer suggestions as to who will pay the bills for higher dental-health expenses. But stop complaining about “YOUR water”, because if it comes out of a tap then it’s communal water and subject to communal cost-minimising decisions.

  142. #142 trish
    December 7, 2011

    most of the scienceblogs are great. but
    one look at your little bio tells me all I need to know about your inflated sense of yourself…what pretentiousness:
    “nom de blog (please!)of a (not so- obviously) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist (gotta put in surgeon- though surgeons are really nothing more than vastly over-payed skilled techs of a sort with giant egos, often with severe social deficiencies) with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent’s posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings (can you put in a few more carefully crafted words- god, this is nauseating), but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will (yeah, right- NYT?.”
    Look at the history of fluoride- how it ended up in our drinking water. Less about public health than (once again) government working as corporate hacks.

  143. #143 Gray Falcon
    December 7, 2011

    Tell me, does repeating a claim make it true?

  144. #144 Lawrence
    December 7, 2011

    Says the internet troll of a dedicated Cancer Surgeon & Researcher with a couple of decades of work behind him…..wow.

    Would love to see a list of your qualifications….but somehow I don’t think that’ll happen.

  145. #145 novalox
    December 7, 2011

    So (in)humane sorriness left? I was enjoying the antics of the uneducated clown, but I guess all things must come to an end.

    At least I had a few good laughs at his/her/its expense.

  146. #146 Heliantus
    December 7, 2011

    fluoridation is banned in most other countries in Europe and China

    Don’t know about China, but in Europe, fluoridation is indeed not done in water. Sodium fluoride is added to table salt.
    Doesn’t look like “banned” to me.

  147. #147 Chris
    December 7, 2011

    trish:

    Look at the history of fluoride- how it ended up in our drinking water. Less about public health than (once again) government working as corporate hacks.

    I have. It was in the ground water in Colorado, and was causing children to have Colorado Brown Stain on their teeth. But was also noticed by Dr. McKay is that they had much fewer cavities.

    It naturally occurs in ground water in many parts of this planet. As I said before, some municipal water suppliers actually remove some fluoride to a level that protects teeth, but does not cause Colorado Brown Stain (dental fluorosis).

  148. #148 Narad
    December 7, 2011

    The brave demander of answers to direct questions got on its huffalump and rode of without providing answers to direct questions? I’m shocked.

  149. #149 Narad
    December 7, 2011

    Just for the record, H.S.’s “external sources” post is a direct lifting from here. This is lazy enough, cherry-picking quotes from the end-of-chapter summaries, but if H.S. isn’t Zalec, it’s really lazy.

  150. #150 herr doktor bimler
    December 7, 2011

    Look at the history of fluoride- how it ended up in our drinking water.
    Some sources say that the idea of fluoridating water was partly inspired as a way of using a by-product of the aluminium industry. In itself, this wouldn’t a strike against it. The field of organic chemistry started out as a search for uses for the by-products of the coking industry.

    So technocrats in local authorities around the world looked at the evidence, discounted any press releases from industries, and found it convincing enough to pay for the water additive.

    Except people like Trish @ 342refuse to believe that the officials were convinced on the evidence, and maintain that they were “government working as corporate hacks”; also maintaining that they themselves are NOT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. They merely have theories. About a conspiracy. And it is purely a coincidence that the anti-fluoridation campaign began with the John Birch society, epicentre of “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”.

    Humane Sorrows: So, from me, you will hear no more

    A pity. I had hoped for clarification of the Libertarian principle that it’s “MY water”, which local authorities have an obligation to purify and supply in exactly the form of purity that Humane Sorrows prefers.

    I also enjoyed the claims to be driven purely by altruistic concern for the innocent children, interspersed with sneers at the stupidity of children who are too poor to follow Humane Sorrows’ own virtuously healthy diet.

  151. #151 Narad
    December 7, 2011

    And, given that H.S. was flopping around over at David Icke’s forum trying to get people to show up here, I’ll note that, sure enough, it’s on the chemtrail bandwagon. And the Illuminati. And mind control through pop music. Katy Perry has something to do with MK-Ultra. Etc.

  152. #152 NJ
    December 7, 2011

    Narad @ 351:

    Katy Perry has something to do with MK-Ultra.

    I thought it was the Trilateral Commission. Damn! I’m always a week behind on the memos!

  153. #153 VikingWarriorPrincess
    December 7, 2011

    “fluoridation is banned in most other countries in Europe and China”

    The corner of Northern Europe where I live is an anomaly then since fluoridation isn’t banned here. We’ve got enough of it naturally occurring in the ground water so we don’t need to add any, in some places they even have to remove fluoride since the levels are a bit too high.
    And to add to the horror when I was a kid we used to get visits every second week by a dental nurse that distributed fluoride dental wash. The school was collaborating with Big Chemical and Big Dental to poison all the kiddies!!!OH NOEZ!!!!elebenty!!!!

  154. #154 Militant Agnostic
    December 7, 2011

    Narad @352 – Don’t worry about it. They all just front groups for the Masonic Communist Underpants Lizards.

  155. #155 MI Dawn
    December 7, 2011

    My parents have a place in northern Michigan. When they drilled the first well, the water had such a high iron content, we were told not to drink it, and they had to drill deeper. Yeah, natural water is just SO safe…

    I recall one friend whose parents had problems with their well; when tested it showed very high arsenic levels (natural). They had to also drill another well, and had a very difficult time getting water good enough to drink. I don’t recall the exact story, as we were kids, just that they had to live in a hotel for a while as the water was considered so unsafe and I was jealous as I’d never been in a hotel!

  156. #156 Krebiozen
    December 7, 2011

    Human Sorrows,
    In case you are still here, I am referring to the link you posted at #250 which is to analyses of 20% hydrofluorosilicic acid concentrate that is added to Adelaide tap water at a dilution of 1 in 200,000 to achieve a fluoride concentration of 1 mg/L.

    this is not some ‘mistaken’ interpretation. AND, where, anywhere, is there a written ‘comparison’ to the EPA standards? ?? WHAT? Where? You are making this stuff up now.

    It is most certainly a mistaken interpretation. Your safety levels are a factor of 200,000 out! Work it out for yourself, or refer to the safety levels on the right hand side of the analysis sheets you link to which refer to the EPA safety levels (or Australian equivalent) multiplied by 200,000 to account for the dilution factor. Or divide the concentrations of mercury, lead etc by 200,000 to get the concentrations that will end up in tap water, and compare them with the EPA safety standards.

    As I have repeatedly explained, the hydrofluorosilicic acid is a 20% concentrate that is diluted 1 part in 200,000 parts of water. You, or someone, have compared the undiluted concentrations of lead, mercury etc in the concentrate to the safety levels for tap water, which is a huge, and very serious mistake. How can I explain this any more simply? It’s not my fault that someone has grossly misinterpreted this information, whoever they are. The very least you could do is acknowledge the error and put it right instead of indignantly accusing me of making it up!

    You might as well accuse the water company of trying to kill everyone with poison gas because the chlorine gas they put in the water would kill you if you inhaled it neat before it is diluted in the water.

  157. #157 Robert G
    December 11, 2011

    “Dilution is no defense.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkRUlHrjz8s

  158. #158 Chris
    December 11, 2011

    And youtube videos are not scientific evidence.

  159. #159 NJ
    December 11, 2011

    Robert G @ 357:

    “Dilution is no defense.”

    But mental illness is. A good thing, in your case.

  160. #160 Krebiozen
    December 11, 2011

    “Dilution is no defense.”
    In Canadian law perhaps not, but in common sense it is.

    Mercury, lead and arsenic concentration in Adelaide tap water have been within EPA limits for the past 5 years, according to Humane Sorrows’ figures. Doing a bit of math using the same figures I find that less than 10% of the mercury in Adelaide tap water is due to fluoridation. Less than 1% of the lead and arsenic is due to fluoridation. The large majority of it is natural, or perhaps from industrial pollution, which might be a cause worth getting excited about. Given the safety margins added to the EPA limits, I still don’t see why you guys are worried.

  161. #161 Anonymous
    May 1, 2012

    First, I would like you to say thank you for opening up comments and leaving it open. You guys have guts.

    Secondly, Fluoride is the worst. It’s the same toxicity as lead, it’s used in rat-poison, it’s a waste and it’s added.

    So basically, this report is bogus.

    There’s no proof of naturally occurring fluoride either. It’s all talk and no proof. I know how bad fluoride is because I swallowed it before when brushing, and apart from headaches, I felt like crap, like depression, but feeling heavy and cramps and pain in my back and my body. Tropically is understood (like in toothpaste, dentist products, things that can be brought and can be chosen), but if it’s forced without a real investigation, then it’s bogus. Obviously the best thing to do is just to find alternatives.

    There’s no safe level, I repeat, no safe level.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.