The health hazards of fluoride (long) - misc.kids

Message from discussion The health hazards of fluoride (long)

David Lubkin

More options Sep 24 1990, 5:35 pm

Newsgroups: misc.kids, sci.skeptic

From: lub...@apollo.HP.COM (David Lubkin)

Date: 24 Sep 90 17:46:00 GMT

Subject: Re: The health hazards of fluoride (long)

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

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

> I'm sorry, I guess you really believe the tripe. The claims are
> blatantly false (e.g. no studies have ever shown a benefit) or
> exaggerated (fluoride is harmful). (Anything is harmful if the dose is
> too high - oxygen is the most toxic of all, and is known to cause
> cancer). At least they don't still claim it's a communist plot.

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]

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

>From: bev...@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician)

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

> (*large groan added to heavy sigh*)
> More from the "Purity of Essence" brigade.

guilt by association

>> I was dismayed to see so many people discussing fluoride with only scant
>> mention of any possible down side.
> Because all the studies that have tried to show down sides have
> been poorly done or inconclusive (which is also true for those
> who have tried to show up sides, but I digress).

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?

>> Fluoride is an industrial waste product.
> False. Fluoride is simply the ion of fluorine (F-). Since it is the
> most electro-negative element, it reacts with almost every organic
> and inorganic substance. Thus, it can be quite dangerous. However,
> the ion is a different matter.

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.

>>DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT FLUORIDE IS POISONOUS?
>> Yes. As little as one-tenth of an ounce will lead to death.
> A little analysis gives the following results:
:
> This is well above the 4-7ppm limit place on fluoridated water as
> well as the cited 1000ppm in toothpaste. They're making a mountain
> out of a molehill.

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

>> HASN'T THE BURK-YIAMOUYIANNIS STUDY BEEN REFUTED BY "CONSUMER REPORTS"? [56]
>> No. The misrepresentations, distortions, half-truths, and untruths
>> published in _Consumer Reports_ have already been answered [57] and have
>> resulted in an $8,000,000 libel suit against Consumers Union.
> A libel suit they are sure to lose. Consumers Union is VERY good in
> it's methodology when doing tests.

I agree with this one, too.

>> Yes. People on poor diets and in poor helth are more susceptible to
>> fluoride poisoning. [72/73]
> This is a strange thing to conclude considering that the under-
> privileged and undernourished don't eat/drink/consume much of
> anything, let alone fluoridated material. How can they be hurt
> most if they are the ones who are least consuming. That is,
> I drink a few glasses of water every day. I believe the water in
> Albuquerque is fluoridated. A UU will not drink as much water
> as me. How are they going to be more affected by it?

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

>> According to N.C. Cons of the New York State Bureau of Dental Health, and
>> oters, topical fluoride as applied by dentists is practically ineffective in
>> reducing tooth decay. [99/100]
> I'm gonna have to see the study on this one to believe it.

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

> I think it was in William Goldman's book, _Brothers,_ that dealt with
> killing a person using toothpaste. The problem is that a person will
> vomit the contents of the stomach before enough toothpaste is
> consumed...and not because of the fluoride but because of the other
> ingredients.

You're citing a novel as evidence???

> "It's all a conspiracy to destroy our Purity of Essence!"
> Yeah...right. I get the feeling...no, I KNOW that the legal pro-
> fession would have a field day if all of their claims about how
> fluoride is killing so many people were true. While the ADA and
> the USPHS are, indeed, bureaucratic groups, they would not deny
> something so OBVIOUSLY true (if it were true). Conspiracy theories
> are almost always false.
>Of course< they would. Such organizations have done so many times before.

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

> What about the liquid baby vitamins (Poly-Vi-Flor)?? My pediatrician
> prescribes them for my (now) 11 month old, and every body else's ped
> that I know of prescribes them for their kids.....The obvious concern
> here is that if no real benefit (for developing teeth) has been proven
> while a myriad of dangers exist, why are so many peds prescribing the
> infant vitamins with flouride??!!

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

> Oh, yeah, one really wants to watch the sodium intake, especially
> if there is a history of heart trouble in the family. I think
> most fluoridated toothpastes now use stannous fluoride, unless
> P&G has a lock on it's use.

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

> For a full refutation of the material, I refer you to sci.skeptic,
> where this was also posted. These people lost their suit. And if any
> of these claims were even remotely possible, don't you think that the
> lawyers would be busy making money from claims?

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

> In addition the "article" never mentioned that the *natural* levels of
> flouridation in many areas far exceeds 1ppm. One might conclude that the
> profitable end-goal of this bunk is to launch a scam de-flouridation
> industry. :-)

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

> What? No communist conspiracy?

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

> Great post! And as "Doctor Strangelove" showed, fluoridation
> can lead to nuclear war.
> Let's keep our bodily fluids pure!

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

> Just what is the National Health Federation? Anybody heard of them? And how is
> John Yiamouyiannis qualified to speak on the subject? Is his Ph.D. in biology or chemistry and is it from a real university?

I believe his PhD is in biochemistry.

|> DO NATIONAL FIGURES SHOW THAT FLUORIDATION REDUCES TOOTH DECAY?
|>
|> No. While the U.S. is one of the most fluoridated countries in the world, it
|> has one of the highest tooth decay rates in the world [11] -- data from the
|> National Center for Health Statistics [12] do not indicate a decrease in
|> tooth decay rates as the U.S. has become progressively more fluoridated --
|> and if tooth decay rates are in any way reflected in the cost of dental care,
|> it should be noted that from 1960 to 1971, a time during which an additional
|> 50,000,000 people were forced to drink artificially fluoridated water, per
|> capita dental costs increased by 102% [13] compared to only a 37% increase in
|> the cost of living. [14]

> It is probably true that more people are using dental services, but this has nothing to do with the tooth-dacay rates. Most of the dental office visits are for check ups and teeth cleaning, not for filling cavities. The dental profession realized a long time ago that practices could make a lot more money by working to prevent tooth decay with regular office visits, than it could by filling cavities.
> In addition, people have become less frightened of going to see the dentist because new tools and techniques have made it less painful and stressful. This makes them more likely to go.

It would be nice to see curves on average tooth decay in this country over
time, perhaps compared with similar curves for industrialized countries
without fluoridation, like France, West Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland.

|> WHAT IS FLUORIDE?
|>
|> Fluoride is an industrial waste product.

Sure Fluoride can be found in industrial wastes, but so can Calcium, Carbon, Iron, and just about every other element as well. The three elements listed and others also happen to be essential to supporting life. This a smear, pure and simple.

Agreed.

|> U.S. industries throw over 100,000
|> tons of fluoride into our atmosphere yearly. [26] We have no idea how much
|> fluoride is being dumped into our waters but estimates range up to 500,000
|> tons or more. [27] This has led to the destruction of wildlife, crops,
|> domestic animals, and human health. In certain areas the adverse effects of
|> fluoride on human health have become so critical, that industries have the
|> waste fluoride hauled away. This is the fluoride used to fluoridate public
|> water supplies.

> Does John Y. have any proof?

Dunno.

|> BUT DON'T THEY USE PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE FLUORIDE FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER?
|>
|> No. They don't even use food grade fluoride, but rather commericial grade
|> fluoride, which, even if fluoride weren't poisonous itself, would still be
|> unfit for human consumption because of other contaminants.

> Again, what proof is there for this assertion? What difference is there between "commercial" grade and "food" grade flouride?

Dunno.

|> DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT FLUORIDE IS POISONOUS?
|>
|> Yes. As little as one-tenth of an ounce will lead to death.

> Who is going to be stupid enough to consume one-tenth of an ounce of fluoride?

I agree that this point is stupid.

|> No one
|> is going to die from drinking >one< glass of fluoridated water, just as no one
|> will die from smoking >one< cigaret. It is the longer-term chronic effects
|> of glass after glass of fluoridated water -- as with cigaret after cigaret --
|> that takes its toll in human health -- and life.

> Arrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh! Flourine, like its sister element chlorine, is flushed out of the body at regular intervals. There is <no way> that the body can accumulate enough flourine to cause death, simply because any excess amount is removed by the kidneys (or the liver, someone please correct me if I am wrong).
> Chlorine, similar in many ways to fluorine, is consumed in much much greater quantities than fluorine, in the form of salt, is just as deadly, and yet the body is quite capable of handling it.

According to the _Townsend Letter for Doctors_, December 1989, 99% of ingested
fluoride is assimilated into bone. (I will separately post their article.)

|> HAVE THESE HARMFUL EFFECTS BEEN PROVEN?
|>
|> Yes. In a court case which lasted from March to November 1978 and in which
|> top experts on both sides of the question were summoned from all over the
|> world, it was proven by a preponderance of the evidence that fluoridation is
|> harmful. [30] In his decision, the presiding judge, the Hon. John P.
|> Flaherty, pointed out that he was "compellingly convinced" of the adverse
|> effects of fluoridation.

> Where was this case tried? Was it appealed?

Dunno. The article refers to the case as 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.) Anyone want to look this up, and see
what happened?

|> WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE ADVERSE EFFECTS?
|>
|> In reference to doses of fluoride comparable to that found in a pint of
|> fluoridated water, the _Physician's Desk Reference_ points out: [31]
|> "Dental fluorisis (mottling) may result from exceeding the recommended dose.
|> In hypersensitive individuals, fluorides occasionally cause skin eruptions
|> such as atopic dematitis, eczema, or urticaria. Gastic distress, headache,
|> and weakness have also been reported. These hypersensitive reactions
|> usually disappear promptly after discontinuation of the fluoride." More
|> detail as to the adverse effects of fluoride is given in a monumental work
|> by Drs. Waldbott, Burgstahler and McKinney. [29]

> How prevalent are these fluorine-related phenomena?

See [29] Flouridation -- the Great Dilemma, Coronado Press, 1978.

> By what means does fluoridated water interfere with reproduction?

See [33] Onderspoort J. Vet. Res. 33:185 (1966).

> By what means does fluoridated water cause Down's Syndrome and other genetic abnormalities?

[29] Flouridation -- the Great Dilemma, Coronado Press, 1978
[34] Bull. Natl. Acad. Med. (France) 140:529 (1956)
[35] Bull. Natl. Acad. Med. (France) 143:367 (1959)

|> IF I LIVE IN A FLUORIDATED COMMUNITY ARE MY CHANCES OF GETTING CANCER
|> GREATER?
|>
|> Yes. After correction for demographic variables such as age, race, and sex,
|> Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis showd that 10,000 or more fluoridation-linked
|> cancer deaths occur yearly in the United Stated. [49/50] In court, top
|> experts from around the world tried to refute these figures; however in his
|> decision the judge remarked: "Point by point, every criticism ... [they]
|> made of the B-Y [Burk-Yiamouyiannis] Study was met and explained." [30]
|> Gastic cancer has previously been associated with fluoride intake [51] and
|> the cancer-causing ability of fluoride has been supported by animal
|> experiments. [52/53/54/55]

> Yianouyiannis has yet to explain why fluoridation causes all of these diverse malidies.

There may be proposed mechanisms in some of the papers he cites, but the
issue of mechanism is irrelevant to whether these effects are substantiated.

|> HASN'T THE BURK-YIAMOUYIANNIS STUDY BEEN REFUTED BY "CONSUMER REPORTS"? [56]
|>
|> No. The misrepresentations, distortions, half-truths, and untruths
|> published in _Consumer Reports_ have already been answered [57] and have
|> resulted in an $8,000,000 libel suit against Consumers Union.

> Fat chance. As stated by an earlier post, CU is <very> good with its research and is not in the habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. In all likelihood, CU will win.
> More importantly, is this case still active?

Unknown. The response to Consumer Reports was in NHF Bulletin 24:1
(November 1978).

|> WHAT ABOUT BABY FORMULAS, ARE THEY FLUORIDATED TOO?
|>
|> Yes. Virtually all of the major infant formula manufacturers have 1 ppm
|> fluoride in their formulas.
|>
|> WILL THIS HARM MY BABY?
|>
|> Because babies consume such a tremendous amount of liquid as compared to
|> their weight, heart damage as well as other complications may occur.
|> [62-68] Moreover, pediatricians, virtually all of whom are unaware that
|> formulas contain 1 ppm fluoride (ask yours), suggest adding an additional
|> 1 ppm fluoride to baby formulas. This leads to 2 ppm fluoride in baby
|> formulas which will increase the chance of heart damage during development.

> Sounds like the alar scare of a year ago. I'd worry more about whether I will be able to afford my kid's college education.

See
[62] Toxicol. Fluorine Symp., Bern, 1962, pp. 125-9 (1964)
[63] ORCA Proc. 6th Congr. Eur. Org. Res. Flouride Dent. Caries Prev.
pp 121-7 (1959)
[64] Nauchno-Izstedovatelskogo Institute Stomatologii 13:1 (1969)
[65] Jap. J. Ind. Health 1:683 (1959)
[66] Acta Pediat. Scand. 59:424 (1970)
[67] Sverige Tandlakarforb Tidn. 61:517 (1969)
[68] Pediatrics 55:517 (1975)

|>
|> WHAT IS THE FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION OF MOTHER'S MILK?
|>
|> Mother's milk contains only 0.01-0.05 ppm fluoride. [69]
|>
|> IS THERE ANY DANGER FROM MALFUNCTIONING FLUORIDATION EQUIPMENT?
|>
|> Yes. In a North Carolina school over 200 children were poisoned with
|> fluoride in April of 1974 due to malfunctioning fluoridation equipment. [70]
|> Water to 5 California communities accidentally received an 800% overdose of
|> fluoride for 2 weeks due to malfunctioning fluoridation equipment. [71]

> Wouldn't water with eight times more fluorine than it should taste a little funny? Perhaps not, but what were the effects of this poisoning?

See
[70] Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep. 23:199 (1974)
[71] San Rafael (Ca.) Independent-Journal (Nov. 25, 1977)

|> Kidney disease, [74-84] diabetes, [85] hypoglycemia, [86] and
|> hypothyroidism. [28/63/87-98] In addition, pregnant women should make an
|> effort to stay away from fluoridated water. [33-48]

> Isn't hypothyroidism caused by a lack of iodine going to the thyroid gland and hypoglycemia by a decrease in sugar in the blood? How is diabetes affected? What proof is offered?

Does your silence mean that you accept that fluoride can cause kidney disease
and should be avoided by pregnant women? For your other questions, see

[28] Merck Index, Merck & Co., 1968, p. 959
[63] ORCA Proc. 6th Congr. Eur. Org. Res. Flouride Dent. Caries Prev.
pp 121-7 (1959)
[85] J. Dent. Res. 41:866 (1962)
[86] Revista 24:79 (1967)
[87] Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 13:76 (1968)
[88] Fluoride 9:29, 105 (1976)
[89] J. Endocrinol. 20:101 (1960)
[90] Annali di Stomatologii 13:103 (1964)
[91] Annali di Stomatologii 14:601 (1965)
[92] Vopr. Gigieny Naselen Mest. Sb. Kiev 5:61 (1964)
[93] Ernaehrungsforsch 8:241 (1963)
[94] Toxicol. Fluorine Symp., Bern, 1962, pp. 118-21 (1964)
[95] Muenchener Med. Wochenschr. 105:182 (1963)
[96] Stomatologia 47:1 (1968)
[97] Tai-Wan I Hsueh Hui Tsa Chih 72:96 (1973)
[98] S. Afr. Med. J. 37:465 (1963)

> This is getting tiresome. What mechanism causes this to happen?

Irrelevant. See

[81] Fluoride 4:114 (1971)
[82] U.S. Natl. Inf. Serv. PB Rep., 1973, No.225081/9GA 61 pp
[83] Arch. Int. Med. 115:167 (1965)
[84] Saturday Review (March 1, 1969)

> Dressing up these allegations in the mantle of science in order to dupe people innocent of the facts is absolutely descpicable. John Y. ought to be ashamed of himself for trying to pass himself off as a scientist. If I say anything furthur, he may sue me for $8 million, for libel or something so I'll stop here.

Right. There's nothing scientific about the journals I've cited, or the 60 others
from his pamphlet I didn't feel like typing in.

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

From: e...@hsi.UUCP (Ed Barcewicz)
Message-ID: <1...@hsi.UUCP>
Date: 19 Sep 90 18:12 GMT

> I've just read some of the postings on fluoride and feel totally confused.
> Scientifically speaking, is it harmful to use fluoride or not??

Some scientists say yes, some say no. You have to decide for yourself. I'm
going to also post an article about an EPA review on the health effects of
fluoride which might help you make up your mind.

> We have well water and have been giving our daughter fluoride drops (when
> she was an infant) and now tablets (she is 3). Her pediatrician has never
> mentioned any side effects!!

Sad, but not surprising. My pediatrician did not mention any possible
side-effects from Joanna's DPT shots.

> Sara Grace is adopted (Paraguay) and now I am wondering, if the effects
> of fluoride are indeed harmful, are they worse for someone who has no
> family history of ever taking fluoride.

The evidence seems to indicate that the problem is one of long-term exposure.
I expect Sara Grace is relatively well off.

===================================end===================================== ==

Reply to author Forward