7 comments on “Just Say No to Fluoridation Chemophobia!

  1. wow, exhaustive post James, nice job. There’s a lot of work put into this. Sharing for those who havent come across these thorough explinations =)

  2. “The leaflet promotes the baseless idea that fluoride lowers IQ (As someone who lived the majority of his life in a fluoridated city, I take that as a personal affront.)”

    Why would you take offense to the results of a study out of Harvard? So much so that you refer to it as “baseless?” The level of cognitive dissonance, cherry picking, out-of-context snippets from studies rather than the conclusions drawn from those studies, and ignoring the moral implications of drugging people without their consent, in this article, is mind-bottling.

    How do you have the balls to say that optimal doses of fluoride are harmless when quoting a study on fluorosis? 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, which is incontrovertibly caused by fluoride, and you call that harmless? It’s also wrong to dismiss another study which found that fluorosis is more common in African-Americans and Hispanics, while touting the outright lie that I just mentioned. You didn’t say anything about the environmental impact at all, and that’s an important part of the discussion since salmon spawn here. Did you know that a fluoride level of .2ppm in the water is fatal to salmon? Do you think it’s a good idea to pump water at over three times the fatal dose of fluoride into their habitat? Think about the bears, man! What will they eat if we kill the salmon? People, that’s what.

    Don’t act like a skeptic and then blindly tow the party line without doing some more research.

    • This post was in response to the flier which didn’t mention salmon so I did not address that issue. As a somewhat-militant vegetarian for over a decade, this argument would be persuasive to me if it had any merit. Fluorine is the 13th most common element in the Earth’s crust. Ocean water contains fluoride levels of 1 ppm up to 6 or 7 times the optimum level of fluoridated water (0.7 ppm); so salmon are already being exposed to fluoride. The same goes for salmon near fluoridated Vancouver and Beaverton. Even if there were an effect on salmon from fluoride, I think that it would be trivial compared to the effects of habitat destruction and overfishing. If you want to help salmon, get people to stop eating them.
      That study is baseless in the sense that it has no legs to stand on. I have an upcoming post in the works on this study and others that people should stop citing. The Harvard IQ study—actually a meta-study—looked at 27 studies. 26 of those were in China, 1 was in Iran. None of the studies looked at communities that fluoridated their water. The studies examined areas of high natural fluoride in the water. Some of the higher samples were up to 10 times the level of optimal water fluoridation, and the control group with average IQ scores was 1 ppm. The question that comes to mind is how does this apply to North American communities that optimally fluoridate water at 0.7 ppm?
      This same confusion about the word “skeptic” came up in the comments on my last post about fluoride. A skeptic is not a knee-jerk reactionary, a contrarian, or cynic. A skeptic is a doubter who thinks empirical evidence should be the final arbiter of truth. Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, explains it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/what-is-skepticism-anyway_b_2581917.html

  3. James, Again I am amazed at your thoroughness in researching the issues. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you had a dental research background. Your attention to detail is impressive.

    • This post was a response to the Clean Water Portland flier, which did not bring up this issue. This argument has merit depending on one’s politics. I think government should help people when it’s cheap and effective. I don’t think my “liberty” is more important than the well-being of the entire city.
      Using scare tactics to scare people about chemistry should also be a red flag to critical thinkers. Accusing people of being shills is another red flag. Even if the accused were a shill (which I am not) to then dismiss his or her arguments uncritically is a form of ad hominem attack.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s