Tim's Web Log #3

Tim's Web Log #3
Thoughts and opinions of an opinionated person

Thu, 20 Feb 2003

The Southwest section of the February 20 Oregonian contained a number of letters weighing in on the issue of fluoridation. Unfortunately, many of these letters reflect a continuation of the disturbing recent trend in this nation toward a reliance on pseudo-science -- a trend being championed by our President.

Several people raised the notion that fluoride is a poison. Sodium fluoride is, indeed, poisonous, in the same way that table salt is poisonous. In fact, sodium fluoride and sodium chloride (salt) are very similar substances, chemically speaking. In large quantities, they represent a danger to the body. Salt does not kill us because we are smart enough not to ingest large quantities, and sodium fluoride in drinking water will not kill us for exactly the same resaon. It is added in very small quantities.

One writer referred to getting his information from a naturopath. As individuals, we are all entitled to get our medical care from whatever provider makes us feel comfortable. However, we should not be relying on naturopathy to set public health policy any more than we should be relying on astrology to set our space exploration policy, or Rush Limbaugh to set our national political agenda.

Too many people get their complete science information from newsletters and web sites written by people with about as much scientific background and credibility as President Bush. These newsletters include lots of ranting and raving designed to stir up anger and outrage, but ranting and raving does not make science. The scientific process is a gradual one, in which hypotheses and experimentation leads us from a general idea to a specific understanding.

People are entitled to righteous indignation and outrage. The right to express outrage is guaranteed in the constitution. But unless that outrage is actually based on facts or evidence with a well-established basis, it should have no effect on public health policy.

Flouridated water has proven benefits for dental health. It reduces tooth decay measurably and provably. Objecting to its use because of hysteria, pseudo-science, and unsubstantiated rumors is neither productive nor good public policy.

(This letter submitted to the Oregonian on 2/20 and printed 2/27)

[10:13] | [opinion] | # | G | Comments(2) |

# From nyscof at Fri Mar 7 03:53:00 2003:

You apparently are too lazy to actually read the scientific research on fluoride and fluoridation and must be relying on dentists to do that for you. Dentists seem to be just as lazy as you are. For starters, research shows that small children already get "optimal" fluoride from their food supply. A study funded with your federal tax dollars conducted by dental researchers warned that children in Connersville, Indiana, risk dental fluorosis (fluoride overdose) from their foods, beverages and toothpaste. Sadly, eager well-meaning but non-reserach-reading dentists forced the community to fluoridate their water supply anyway, putting these children way over their limit and wasting taxpayers dollars. Other studies find fluoride in the unlikelest places such as McDonald's french fries, chicken baby foods and luncheon meat, sodas and juices. All studies concluded children can be overdosed from their foods alone. Some studies show over 50% of US children sport dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow or brown permanently stained teeth) which is more prevalent and more severe in our poor and minority populations which, also suffer from the most tooth decay and are least likely to be treated by dentists who won't accept Medicaid (or nothing) as payment. The silicofluorides used by most US fluoridating communities have never been safety tested (check this out; you'll be surprised). Recent research reveals that children who live in silicofluoridated communities have higher blood lead levels than children who live in sodium fluoridated or non-fluoridated communities. If this is your letter to the editor, you'd better do some resesarch and ask for that letter to be withdrawn or at least re-submit it to include the overwhelming science that shows adding fluoride to water supplies is not safe, not necessary and a waste of money. New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.fluoridealert.org http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://makeashorterlink.com/?D18721943 http://www.fluoridation.com http://www.bruha.com/fluoride http://www.fluoride-journal.com

# From TimRoberts at Fri Mar 28 17:55:00 2003:

I have read the research. There are studies that back up both sides of this debate. The evidence is not conclusive either way.

However, I congratulate you for including those links in your post. My primary purpose in writing that article was to complain about unjustified hysteria and pseudo-scientific conclusions. The way to combat that is to enforce the use of believable, well-reasoned, and well-supported science. You are helping to do that.