I'm glad my little posting is stirring the pot a bit.  I am not espousing
any particular position.  I just want to get an intelligent discussion going.

Responses to my original posting on fluoride have fallen into several
categories:

   1.  Private mail thanking me for posting it.
   2.  Pro-fluoride public mail:
       a) blanket ridicule of anti-fluoridation
       b) guilt by association
       c) appeal to authority
       d) counter-arguments
          1.  irrelevant
          2.  valid
              a) substantiated
              b) unsubstantiated

I will identify each type, but only respond to counter-arguments.

-- David Lubkin
   lub...@apollo.hp.com

=========================================================================== ===

From: k...@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt)
Message-ID: <572@demott.COM>
Date: 14 Sep 90 00:59 GMT

blanket ridicule of anti-fluoridation

guilt by association

irrelevant counter-arguments:  The article reports many studies dealing
with harmful effects of low doses.  [29/32/34/35/48-50/58/59/101/102/104/105]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

Message-ID: <1990Sep14.071557.10390@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 90 07:15:57 GMT

guilt by association

Cite specifics.  And if you believe that the proponent's studies are poorly
done or inconclusive, that is also something that the readers of misc.kids
should hear.  There are two questions:  Does the dietary addition of fluoride
significantly reduce tooth decay?  Does the dietary addition of fluoride lead
to significant health risks?

I think what they meant to say is that fluorine is an industrial waste
product.  Presumably some of the waste fluorine is dissolved, yielding
fluoride.

I agree with this.  The fact that enough flouride is poisonous is irrelevant.

I agree with this one, too.

Read the studies.  72 is J. AM. DENT. ASSN. 44:156 (1952).  73 is J. AM.
DENT. ASSN. 65:608 (1962).

  :

[99]   J. AM. DENT. ASSN. 80:777 (1970)
[100]  J. ORAL THERAP. PHARMACOL. 3:17 (1966)

You're citing a novel as evidence???

Look at the suppression of homeopathy, the blind advocacy of mass
vaccination, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, the suppression of Hoxsey,
the massive rise in unwarranted caesarean births, the position of the FDA
that RDA's of vitamins represent optimal daily doses, etc.  There are
countless examples in medicine, science, and business of deliberate or
unintentional suppression of the truth by either organizations or
uncoordinated individuals.

(Please don't respond to disagree with any of the items I listed; at least
not yet.  Let's have one war at a time.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

From: e...@cbnewsi.att.com (elin.c.upperco)
Message-ID: <1990Sep14.122635.13...@cbnewsi.att.com>
Date: 14 Sep 90 12:26 GMT

Doctors do a lot of things that are unproven or harmful.  They used to use
blood-letting and induced mercury or lead poisoning as curatives.  More
recently, we have DES, Thalidomide, X-rays for acne, Dalcon shields, the use
of Terramycin in treating respiratory conditions in premature babies,
discouragement of breast-feeding, unwarranted use of forceps, and the
irradiation of tonsils, lymph nodes, and the thymus gland.  Practices still
under debate are pediatric vaccination, fluoridation, chemo-therapy, and
allopathic treatment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

From: kasso...@minerva.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Message-ID: <11...@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 17 Sep 90 18:45 GMT

Many of them have sodium fluoride.  Read your labels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

From: k...@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt)
Message-ID: <5...@demott.COM>
Date: 18 Sep 90 16:30 GMT

An interesting variation of an appeal to authority.  Lawyers instead of
doctors.  BTW, there have been (successful) suits, as my article cited, e.g.,
Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View (Nov. 16, 1978).  (Sorry they don't give
a full legal citation, but they offer a report of the case for $3.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

From: j...@intermec.UUCP (Jay Schlegel x6878)
Message-ID: <1...@intermec.UUCP>
Date: 18 Sep 90 19:37 GMT

Irrelevant, if true, in of itself.  If fluoridation is hazardous, how does
the existence of a natural hazard in some locations justify imposing that
hazard on others?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

From: no...@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North)
Message-ID: <1...@manta.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 16 Sep 90 21:22 GMT

guilt by association

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

From: hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Message-ID: <59...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 90 20:35 GMT

ridicule and guilt by association

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

From: tar...@athena.mit.edu (Ronald G Lovejoy)
Message-ID: <1990Sep19.024320.10...@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 90 02:43 GMT

...

read more »

Crest switched from stannous fluoride to sodium fluoride several years
ago (some time in the early eighties--I only know from reading the labels;
I never heard any explanation of why).  As far as I know, all major
brands use sodium fluoride, with the exception of Colgate, which uses
"MFP" (sodium monofluorophosphate?).  Last time I saw a label, that's
what it said, but I don't know if it's still the same.

The only documentation I can offer is the labels themselves.

--
Paul Callahan
calla...@cs.jhu.edu

On my citing William Goldman on killing a person with toothpaste
isn't a reasonable thing to do, I received a reply of "your
citing a novel?"

Yes.  William Goldman is a good author who researches his material
for accuracy before writing it (except in _The Princess Bride,_
which he didn't write in the first place  ;-)  If he writes that
killing a person with toothpast is unfeasible, I believe him.
Having read the ingredients list of a tube of toothpaste, it's
not inconceivable.

--
Brian Evans             |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."

One response to the anti-fluoridation people I've never seen refuted:

1. "Natural" water sources, such as uncontaminated mountain streams,
have substantial fluoride levels.

2. Water processing plants remove most of the naturally ocurring
fuoride as part of the purification process.

3. Fluoridation is simply a means of replacing lost fluoride.  Treatment
plants routinely add back lost minerals and no one objects to that
practice.

Any takers?
--
Seth J. Bradley   Path: {uunet}!iwarp.intel.com!dalek!sjb

In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes:

[though it's easy. Witness... :-]

This one is NATURAL fluoride. It is good for your health.

Thus destroying much of the beneficial properties of NATURAL water.

They add ARTIFICIAL, cancer-giving, chemicals. As is well-known.

You compare natural products with their poisonous industrial counterparts
as if they were the same. You can't fool us with your rhetorical tricks.
You really deserve to be drowned in ARTIFICIAL water.

--Philippe :-)

In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes:

Irrelevant.  The fact that something is "natural" has nothing to do with whether
it is safe or not.  "Natural" building materials may be high in radon.

The key questions are whether 1-4 ppm fluoride provides a significant health
benefit and whether it provides a significant health risk.

-- David Lubkin
   lub...@apollo.hp.com

Not that the risks of eating toothpaste are a central point of our
discussion, but I'm sorry.  I'm citing journals like Environmental Fluoride,
JAMA, J. Dent. Res., and Nature, and you're citing a novel?  I don't care
how much confidence you have in Goldman.

But even supposing it's true that it is not reasonable to kill an adult with
toothpaste, that doesn't say anything about Yiamouyiannis's claim:

    While most children will not consume an entire tube of toothpaste, it
    must be realized that toxic reactions occur before a lethal dose is
    obtained.  In this context, it is important to note that children 4-6
    years of age consume 25-33% of the toothpaste put on their toothbrush.
    [103]

[103] Caries Res. 3:290 (1969)

-- David Lubkin
   lub...@apollo.hp.com

Fine.  I'll write to Goldman and get his references.  Happy?

What are the toxic effects and are they related to the fluoride
or anything else in the toothpaste?  To kill a person with toothpaste,
the effects are NOT because of an overdose of fluoride but because
of the other ingredients.

So why hasn't anybody yelled about the saccharine in toothpaste?
It's a known carcinogen.  Could it be that the cancer scare of
saccharine is overblown?  Those that say that it causes cancer in
laboratory rats neglect the fact that one would have to consume
70 sticks of gum every day for years before any effect would be seen.

I see a similar case for fluoride.

--
Brian Evans             |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."

M>Yes.  William Goldman is a good author who researches his material
M>for accuracy before writing it

Isn't this also the guy who wrote _Marathon Man_ about the evil
sadistic escaped Nazi death camp dentist?

In article <4d0b6366.20...@apollo.HP.COM>, lub...@apollo.HP.COM (David

  Mr. Lubkin is "citing" these journals?  I had the impression that Mr.
Lubkin is citing one specific tract put out by a dedicated anti-fluoride
advocate - whose interpretation and accuracy are open to speculation.
This is quite different from citing articles read first hand.

  If Mr. Lubkin HAS read all of the mentioned articles, I extend my
apologies to him, and my congratulations for having plodded through
JAMA, J. Dent. Res., and (my favorite) the Swedish Dental Times, which
was mentioned in another posting.  Not many American engineers bother to
read Swedish medical journals!

HA HA what a yuk! Great observations.

Sounds like a conservative estimate to me.  My children (aged 1.5 and ~4)
consume 80-90% of the toothpaste I put on their toothbrushes.  But my 18 month
old son remove the caps off the toothpaste tube (BTY, off of "childproof"
pill bottles too) and will "mainline" the toothpaste given half a chance!

Is children's toothpaste really safer?  I hope so!

-Sally

A few points to keep in mind:

We need to keep fluorINE (F2) a highly reactive and corrosive gas
distinct from fluorIDE (F-) the ion which results from the oxidation of
fluorine.  Fluorine is so corrosive it can oxidize oxygen (and turns
into fluoride as a result).  

I suspect that a topical application of fluoride is of no value because
it is washed, brushed, or worn off rather easily.  It is not
incorporated into the tooth.  Fluorine in the water (or vitamins) goes
into the blood stream and becomes incorportated into teeth as they are
produced.  This is the reason hehind fluoridating water and having
children drink it.

The reason they may have stopped using stannous fluoride in toothpaste
is a concern over potential heavy metal (tin) poisonning.

I am not an advocate of fluoridation.  I just present these points to
help guide the discussion.

Actually, I am more concerned about eating food which has been in contact
with plastics, esp polystyrene.  Styrene monomer is really nasty stuff.

                                       Bill Gripp
--
+---------+---------------------------------------------------------------- -----
|  THE    |
| BANK OF | Bill Gripp
|   NEW   |

In article <1990Sep28.181624.3...@bony1.uucp> bi...@bony1.uucp (Bill W.

Tin isn't particularly poisonous.  For this reason, it has been used a lot
in containers for things that people consume, from the old tin-plated
steel cans called "tin cans" to toothpaste tubes to lead-free solder for water
pipes.

Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pe...@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.

Yes, that's him.  A friend tells me "Don't go by the movie, it's not
as good."

_Brothers_ is the sequel to _Marathon Man_ so you might want to read
it if you read _MM._  I am warned by the same friend that since Goldman
tends to put sadistic characters in his novels, be on notice that
_Brothers_ tends to shine in this respect.

And the reference to _Brothers_ was incorrect in my earlier posting.
It was _The Color of Light._  The main character researched the
question "Is it possible to kill a man by forcing him to swallow
an entire tube of toothpaste."  The answer came back, "Yes, but it
would be hard to hide the evidence."  Nothing more was said.

Please forgive my memory lapses.

--
Brian Evans             |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."

How can "they" tell?  Radioactive tracers in the toothpaste?
--
 Daniel R. Levy * uunet!tellab5!mtcchi!levy * These views not on behalf of MTC
so far as I can remember, there is not one    | ... THEREFORE BE AS SHREWD AS
word in the gospels in praise of intelligence.| SERPENTS [SEE GEN. 3] AND HARM-
-- bertrand russell [berkeley unix fortune]   | LESS AS DOVES -- JC [MT. 10:16]

I'm sorry, but somebone's going to have to explain to me the difference
between a NATURAL chemical and an ARTIFICIAL chemical.

It reminds me of all the crap one hears about SEA SALT
(NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten)
versus NORMAL, AVERAGE, RUN-OF-THE-MILL, EVERYDAY TABLE-SALT
(NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten).

(For the un-initiated, NaCl stands for Sodium-Chloride, the chemical
 name for what is usually known as table salt.)

Then there's esoteric, expensive Vitamin C from ROSE HIPS (ascorbic acid)
vs. everyday, cheap Vitamin C from SOME FACTORY IN DETROIT (ascorbic acid).

(Well, gee, I must admit, "rose hips" sure does sound better!
 But, nevertheless, it's still the same identical thing.)

Oh, while we're at it, let's not forget how we can be drowned in
ARTIFICIAL WATER (H2O plus miscellaneous trace elements) versus
NATURAL WATER (H2O plus miscellaneous trace elements)

Unless you can tell me this difference, the argument of whether the
chemical is natural or artificial has absolutely nothing to do with
whether it's good for me or bad for me.

A chemical is a chemical.  It's "quantity of naturalness" as measured
by some typical health-food fanatic is totally irrelevant.
--
=======================Standard Disclaimers Apply=======================
"We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no   |            Alvin
longer in service.  Please check the value of pi,     |   "the Chipmunk"
or pray to your local diety for assistance."          |          Sylvain

In article <NELSON.90Oct7055...@image.clarkson.edu> nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NEL...@CLUTX.BITNET) writes:

Sure, its contaminated in the same way that anything except ultra-purified
distilled water is.  I don't think that I made myself clear earlier.
Fluoride is a naturally ocurring compound.  It was in the water before the
first man walked upon the earth.  Fluorine occurs in many types of mineral
deposits ( fuorite, cryolite, phosphate rock) and tends to get into the
water supply.  Water processing tends to remove the fluoride, so its added
back, along with a wide variety of minerals.  Do you complain about the
minerals being added?  If you want to worry about what's in your water,
worry about contamination by industrial toxins.  They are FAR, FAR more
likely to be hazardous!
--
Seth J. Bradley   Path: {uunet}!iwarp.intel.com!dalek!sjb

Alvin Sylvain writes asking why iodine is put into table salt.

Sort of for the same reason that they put fluoride into the water.
The makers of salt at some point came to the realization on their
own or were coerced (I don't know which) that hypothyroidism is
a problem.  Since many Americans use table salt frequently, they
could put it in their salt and nobody would notice any difference
in taste.

However, it IS possible to buy salt without iodine in it.  While
I personally don't understand the anti-fluoride brigade, I do
think that it should be possible to have non-fluoridated water
pumped into your house without having to pay extra for it and
without hassle.

--
Brian Evans             |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."

In article <152...@felix.UUCP> asylv...@felix.UUCP (Alvin E. Sylvain) writes:

    I'm sorry, but somebone's going to have to explain to me the difference
    between a NATURAL chemical and an ARTIFICIAL chemical.

    It reminds me of all the crap one hears about SEA SALT
    (NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten)
    versus NORMAL, AVERAGE, RUN-OF-THE-MILL, EVERYDAY TABLE-SALT
    (NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten).

While most of the examples you give are indeed examples of adding the
word `natural' and doubling the price, there is a large difference
between sea salt and normal table salt. Sea salt tends to
contain many other things besides sodium chloride, I think potassium
chloride is a major one. Basically, if you take sea water and
evaporate it off what is left contains many minerals besides `salt'.

It does taste _very_ different, which is not to say better. I use
nothing else, my flat mate wont go near it.

My favorite ``natural'' snake oil is a certain famous french mineral
water which is so heavily processed that it looses it's
carbonisation. Since they can sell it for more if it fizzes they
carbonate it just before they bottle it. However, in order to be able
to stick `naturally sparkling'' on the label they save the CO2 they
extract from it and reintroduce it at the end. It makes all the
difference, this ``natural'' CO2 :-)

BTW, what would count as ``artificial'' CO2? Would it have to be built
from the quarks up?

--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr

In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes:

   One response to the anti-fluoridation people I've never seen refuted:

   1. "Natural" water sources, such as uncontaminated mountain streams,
   have substantial fluoride levels.

If it has substantial fluoride levels, then it's not uncontaminated, is it?

--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson

Actually, if I recall correctly from Margaret Visser's (sp.?) marvelous
book "Much depends on dinner", iodine in salt is put in to cut down on
absorption of moisture, so the salt cellars don't clog. That's why
whichever brand of salt it is - Morton's? - has as its slogan
"Iodized salt. When it rains, it pours"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Helen Johnston          | Josquin is master of the notes, which must |
| Caltech Astronomy Dept. |   express what he desires; other composers |
| h...@deimos.caltech.edu |             must do what the notes dictate |
|                         |                            - Martin Luther |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[this was Philippe ...]
In article <152...@felix.UUCP> asylv...@felix.UUCP (Alvin E. Sylvain) writes:
             ^^^
uh oh ... ... |

[this was me ...]

My apologies to Philippe and to everyone else for not noticing the
"smiley face" ... his sarcasm was so horribly accurate, I thought
he really was serious!

Open mouth ... insert foot ... good thing this is NATURAL leather!
--
=======================Standard Disclaimers Apply=======================
"We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no   |            Alvin
longer in service.  Please check the value of pi,     |   "the Chipmunk"
or pray to your local diety for assistance."          |          Sylvain

Morton (of Morton-Thiokol fame) also makes non-iodized salt.  And
the phrase is simply "When it rains, it pours."  Our container of
Morton salt has that slogan on it and it does not contain iodide.

That the iodide was added for dietary considerations is evident from
the packaging:  "This salt contains iodine.  A necessary nutrient."
On their popcorn salt, which does not contain iodide, it says "This
salt does not supply iodide.  A necessary nutrient."

The free flowing-ness of the salt is due to sodium silicoaluminate.

--
Brian Evans             |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."

Some countries, such as New Zealand, have very low levels of iodine
as a trace element naturally occuring in the soil.  For this reason,
we accept the addition of iodine to table salt as an important way
to boost levels to avoid ill health.
--
Paul Gillingwater, p...@actrix.co.nz