PDA

View Full Version : Kansas fluoride bill



KingsGambit
02-09-2014, 02:15 PM
I've just been reading about the proposed bill in my state that would require a public warning to communities served by fluoridated water that there is a demonstrated link between fluoride and lower IQ in children. I seem inclined to view this with suspicion as I am not sure I even believe in the legitimacy of IQ to begin with, and it seems some dentists view this as on the level of a conspiracy theory. I thought I would run the issue by some of those with more of a science background to get more of an informed view on the issue.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/09/4810243/dentists-speak-out-as-kansas-fluoride.html

Outis
02-09-2014, 02:24 PM
Sounds like the folks in Lawrence have been listening to Joe Mercola. Try this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/

KingsGambit
02-09-2014, 02:30 PM
Sounds like the folks in Lawrence have been listening to Joe Mercola. Try this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/

Why Lawrence? It's culturally liberal and fairly distinct from the rest of the state.

Cerebrum123
02-09-2014, 02:35 PM
Why Lawrence? It's culturally liberal and fairly distinct from the rest of the state.

Maybe they've been watching Dr. Oz. From what I understand he brought Mercola on his show.

ETA: He's being advertised as "America's Doctor", and gives his credibility to even "psychic surgeons" IIRC.

Outis
02-09-2014, 02:58 PM
Why Lawrence? It's culturally liberal and fairly distinct from the rest of the state.

That's where the byline came from, I assumed that's where they story originated.

Raphael
02-09-2014, 03:23 PM
Gah, this one always irritates me. It's a pretty big issue over here in NZ. I know that at their last round of public consultations for their Annual plan one NZ council had a person throw in a thousand page submission against Flouride.

And when we had the last round of Local Government Elections (last year) Hamilton City Council had a referendum about putting flouride back in the water (after the coulcil decided to go against a previous referendum a from a couple of years back and remove it) the anti-flouride brigade got up in arms with the Waikato District Health board for daring to put out proper information about the issue.

(me personally I need to have extra flouride, so have a special mouthwash used once a week that is extra strong flouride)

Outis
02-09-2014, 03:27 PM
(me personally I need to have extra flouride, so have a special mouthwash used once a week that is extra strong flouride)

And I'm assuming you've noticed no precipitous drop in your IQ?

The anti-fluoride nuts are not as bad as the anti-vaccination nuts. At least skipping fluoride doesn't get children killed. But they're still nuts.

Raphael
02-09-2014, 05:18 PM
And I'm assuming you've noticed no precipitous drop in your IQ? duh wha? :rasberry: (that's just the having been up for 42 hours and then only getting 4 hours sleep talking.....)


The anti-fluoride nuts are not as bad as the anti-vaccination nuts. At least skipping fluoride doesn't get children killed. But they're still nuts.The irony is they use the "we don't want chemicals in our water. So great, we'll get to removing the chlorine then shall we?

rogue06
02-09-2014, 05:22 PM
I'm surprised they aren't issuing warnings about Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) being mixed in with that fluoridated water

Catholicity
02-09-2014, 05:23 PM
Well, having met a few of the "Lawrence" psychos on the internet, and the other psycho's on the internet, there is no shortage of anti-flouridation. I have my own reasons for not giving flouride to children who are not old enough to not understand spit it out, however for the same age base I have always undertood from a dental perspective to give water with flouride in it. It has something to do with the risk of flouride toxicity being higher in young children. My dentist told me to wait until three, and I believe that is the standard of care. However this goes beyond what is normal and takes it to a whole new level. Fearmongering is a common tactic used by the so-called "anti science" crowd. I'm not sure why they want a person to believe that everything in medicine is evil, but they almost could be diagnosed with a paranoid delusion.

Christianbookworm
02-09-2014, 05:24 PM
I'm surprised they aren't issuing warnings about Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) being mixed in with that fluoridated water

Want to quote the whole joke? It is a powerful solvent, found in tumors, fatal if inhaled, ettc.

Catholicity
02-09-2014, 05:26 PM
yup they want to kill us. This is the same crowd that doesn't think that childbirth comes with inherent risks and that its okay to deliver a breech baby at home despite the fact that without surgical intervention 1 in 30 would die and a greater number born has oxygen deprivation.

Outis
02-09-2014, 05:32 PM
It has something to do with the risk of flouride toxicity being higher in young children. My dentist told me to wait until three, and I believe that is the standard of care.

Makes perfect sense. However, do be careful, even after they reach the age of three, with flavored fluoridated tooth care products. Some kids ingest them and get sick. THe biggest symptom is GI upset--affects that would damage bone or teeth usually take chronic doses of above safe levels.


However this goes beyond what is normal and takes it to a whole new level. Fearmongering is a common tactic used by the so-called "anti science" crowd. I'm not sure why they want a person to believe that everything in medicine is evil, but they almost could be diagnosed with a paranoid delusion.

In the case of some, like Joe Mercola, it's because he's trying to sell you his snake oil. (References available upon request, or you can look him up on Wikipedia or Rationalwiki.)

rogue06
02-09-2014, 05:34 PM
Maybe they've been watching Dr. Oz. From what I understand he brought Mercola on his show.

ETA: He's being advertised as "America's Doctor", and gives his credibility to even "psychic surgeons" IIRC.
While Oz is truly an accomplished cardiothoracic surgeon he is also a notorious purveyor of woo including pushing the vaccines cause autism nonsense and bringing on John Edward to talk to ghosts

HMS_Beagle
02-09-2014, 05:36 PM
yup they want to kill us. This is the same crowd that doesn't think that childbirth comes with inherent risks and that its okay to deliver a breech baby at home despite the fact that without surgical intervention 1 in 30 would die and a greater number born has oxygen deprivation.

"This man has acute appendicitis, rush him to the hospital!"

"Wait, he's a Christian Scientist"

"Oh. In that case, get him a copy of Reader's Digest!"

:tongue:

Catholicity
02-09-2014, 06:04 PM
Makes perfect sense. However, do be careful, even after they reach the age of three, with flavored fluoridated tooth care products. Some kids ingest them and get sick. THe biggest symptom is GI upset--affects that would damage bone or teeth usually take chronic doses of above safe levels.



In the case of some, like Joe Mercola, it's because he's trying to sell you his snake oil. (References available upon request, or you can look him up on Wikipedia or Rationalwiki.)

You've never seen kiddie tooth paste? There's one regarded for age's 0-3 with no flouride and one for age's three to 5 with a child appropriate amount of flouride (made by orajel dentist's use it, and its safe if a child swallows a negligable amount) and then there's the 5 to 10 age appropriate toothpaste. plus the yearly flouride treatments dentists use at their discretion and with age based levels. Again standard of care. That's normal and appropriate.
I think makers of age appropriate toothpastes include orajel, tom's of maine, jason, colgate and spry. It works well. Also the ADA reccommends that children under 6 be supervised if using flouride toothpaste. Again standard of care and general well being. Don't swallow a bottle of toothpaste as an adult or a child. that's just dumb. brush and spit.

Outis
02-09-2014, 06:07 PM
You've never seen kiddie tooth paste?

My children are all grown. Such things are behind me.

Catholicity
02-09-2014, 06:14 PM
My children are all grown. Such things are behind me.
Mine are not.

klaus54
02-09-2014, 06:15 PM
It's a Commie.. err.. Terrorist plot!!!

grmorton
02-16-2014, 06:07 PM
Rogue, One should actually do a google search before ridiculing something. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

Note that this is from the National Institude of health.

Darth Xena
02-16-2014, 06:23 PM
I love you Glenn (of course in a strictly platonic way)

shunyadragon
02-16-2014, 06:23 PM
Rogue, One should actually do a google search before ridiculing something. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

Note that this is from the National Institude of health.

glen welcome back!!! good reference.

seanD
02-16-2014, 06:40 PM
Sounds like the folks in Lawrence have been listening to Joe Mercola. Try this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/

Joe or Harvard maybe.

rwatts
02-16-2014, 08:53 PM
I've just been reading about the proposed bill in my state that would require a public warning to communities served by fluoridated water that there is a demonstrated link between fluoride and lower IQ in children. I seem inclined to view this with suspicion as I am not sure I even believe in the legitimacy of IQ to begin with, and it seems some dentists view this as on the level of a conspiracy theory. I thought I would run the issue by some of those with more of a science background to get more of an informed view on the issue.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/09/4810243/dentists-speak-out-as-kansas-fluoride.htmlHere in Oz, South Australia specifically, we've had flouride in our water for as long as I can remember. I've lost my hair, and have false teeth and Jorge thinks I'm stupid.

As for the "as long as I can remember", I cannot remember how long ago that was.

This information might help the consipracy theorists, so don't let them know it. :)

Carrikature
02-16-2014, 09:49 PM
Rogue, One should actually do a google search before ridiculing something. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

Note that this is from the National Institude of health.

From that paper:

The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing. However, as research on other neurotoxicants has shown, a shift to the left of IQ distributions in a population will have substantial impacts, especially among those in the high and low ranges of the IQ distribution (Bellinger 2007).

Our review cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, because the actual exposures of the individual children are not known. Misclassification of children in both high- and low-exposure groups may have occurred if the children were drinking water from other sources (e.g., at school or in the field).

...

Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious ones, that limit the conclusions that can be drawn. However, most deficiencies relate to the reporting of where key information was missing. The fact that some aspects of the study were not reported limits the extent to which the available reports allow a firm conclusion. Some methodological limitations were also noted.

...

Although the studies were generally of insufficient quality, the consistency of their findings adds support to existing evidence of fluoride-associated cognitive deficits, and suggests that potential developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride should be a high research priority.

...

In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should formally evaluate dose–response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders.

Yeah...

oxmixmudd
02-17-2014, 07:33 AM
Interesting. So the best guess based on the paper Glenn references is about a 0.5 degradation in average IQ. IOW, if the average population in a non-floride area has an IQ of 100, we could expect the average IQ in an area using fluoride to be about 99.5, with unspecified larger effects at the extremes. That is, the percentage of a population that is above genius level would decrease by more than .5%, and the number of people below the level identified as mentally handicapped would increase by more than .5%

Seems like something worth doing serious study to understand.


Jim

rogue06
02-17-2014, 07:44 AM
Rogue, One should actually do a google search before ridiculing something. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

Note that this is from the National Institude of health.
Can't a guy make a Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) joke around here? :glare:

Glad to see you around and I hope you're doing well.

KingsGambit
02-24-2014, 06:28 PM
Update: The bill has died in committee.
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/24/4847251/kansas-sex-ed-fluoride-bills-run.html

Sam
02-25-2014, 12:33 AM
Rogue, One should actually do a google search before ridiculing something. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

Note that this is from the National Institude of health.

It's probably important to note that this study is dealing with high-exposure fluoridation, where the subjects were potentially exposed up to almost three times the fluoride concentration allowed in drinking water for US children:

"The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7–1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States (U.S. EPA 2011)."

If the discussion is revolving around whether fluoridation in US drinking water lowers IQ, this study won't help out much, except to say that it's possible at levels far in excess of what's allowed over here.

—Sam

TheLurch
02-25-2014, 05:04 AM
Rogue, One should actually do a google search before ridiculing something. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

Note that this is from the National Institude of health.

Note that it's not actually "from" the NIH; it's just hosted there. It originally appeared in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. However, a few years back, the NIH adopted an open access policy on research from people it funded: they have one year to make any publications available to the public. The NIH offers to host the publications, which is why this PDF appears at the NIH site.

Generally, this is a Very Good Thing: the public gets full access to the research it paid for. However, that also means the public needs to do due diligence regarding research quality, validity of the conclusions, etc., and that the NIH does not endorse all findings that come out of the research it funds. Sam's comment immediately above is the sort of caution we need to exercise when looking at this materia.

Carrikature
02-25-2014, 06:02 AM
Note that it's not actually "from" the NIH; it's just hosted there. It originally appeared in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. However, a few years back, the NIH adopted an open access policy on research from people it funded: they have one year to make any publications available to the public. The NIH offers to host the publications, which is why this PDF appears at the NIH site.

Generally, this is a Very Good Thing: the public gets full access to the research it paid for. However, that also means the public needs to do due diligence regarding research quality, validity of the conclusions, etc., and that the NIH does not endorse all findings that come out of the research it funds. Sam's comment immediately above is the sort of caution we need to exercise when looking at this materia.

Thank you for pointing this out. I hadn't known this was the case, and I'd been wondering why a lot of (seemingly) lower quality studies were showing up with links to the NIH.