Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS
 
 
 

Added fluoride to continue in Tama water

Council Chooses Not To Act On Public Hearing Idea

January 10, 2014

City water officials last month told the Tama City Council concerns are being voiced in other cities, Des Moines in particular, over the addition of fluoride to municipal water supplies....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(26)

DavidGreen

Jan-10-14 10:23 AM

It is not an accident that fluoridation is being challenged around the world in the few countries that carry out the practice. I suggest the council hold the meeting and hear from the experts that oppose fluoridation.

The article has an error. It should refer to .4 ppm in the source water and an addition of .3 ppm by the city.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MzByrd

Jan-10-14 11:02 AM

I appreciate Dr. Kubik's comments. Fluoride in water is well-studied and remains a best-practice for supporting oral health for citizens. "Thank you" to the city council for supporting it! Checkout: iowa.ilikemyteeth****

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-10-14 1:35 PM

It is not an accident that the United States is 74.6% fluoridated, increased from 73.4% in 2011, in spite of repeated attempts by antifluoridationists to have this valuable public health initiative ceased. Unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentation of science, out-of-context quotes, and presentation of outright misinformation by antifluoridationists have been countered with facts supported by valid scientific evidence, repeatedly, by concerned, knowledgeable healthcare providers and experts, exactly as just occurred in Tama. This has enabled intelligent leaders to make informed decisions on fluoridation, exactly as just occurred in Tama.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidGreen

Jan-10-14 4:44 PM

Steve,

You are absolutely correct that fluoridation in the U.S. is not an accident. It is well documented in Christopher Bryson's book The Fluoride Deception, a tremendous insight into the incestuous relationship between fluoride polluting industry and the USPHS in the late 40's and 50's. Here's a stat that puts your percentages in a little perspective. More people drink artificially fluoridated water in the U.S. than in the rest of the world combined. I guess you folks are just smarter than everyone else. Just like the Romans.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-10-14 6:24 PM

David Green

There is no such thing as "artificially fluoridated water". Fluoride ions occur naturally and are identical regardless the source.

Christopher Bryson is an investigative reporter, not a scientist, healthcare expert, or healthcare provider. His book is neither peer-reviewed nor scientific. You are certainly free to cite and obtain your "information" from such dubious "sources", but for those intelligent people who seek honest, accurate information on the public health initiative of water fluoridation, I would advise staying clear of biased "books" and antifluoridationist websites, and instead obtain information from reliable, respected, and primary sources. The websites of the EPA, the CDC, the NSF, the ADA, and the World Health Organization (WHO), each has a wealth of accurate information on water fluoridation readily available to anyone who so desires.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidGreen

Jan-10-14 10:21 PM

No such thing as artificially fluoridated water??? That would be the water that man puts HFSA into. Since you cite WHO as credible, perhaps you can explain the data from that organization showing no difference in decay rates in 12 year olds regardless of their country's fluoridation of water or salt. You can find that at fluoridealert****; the biased website that you "wouldn't know how to access" but "have visited" but don't monitor.

You also cite the CDC. How about explaining their acknowledgement in 1999 that fluoride works primarily topically?

One more thing. Why won't you debate Paul Connett from FAN? If he is a wrong as you say, it should be no problem for you to expose that for all the world to see. I went to see Paul last night when he was nearby. He talked a little about the PEW trust and how much money they have behind them. Are they paying you anything to show up and promote fluoridation wherever their is a story? Full disclosure Steve.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 3:52 AM

David Green.......continued

In regard to "debating" Connett, of course I won't do so. That would be totally nonsensical. His constant pleadings for debates is his attempt to trivialize a scientific, healthcare issue by throwing out as many unsubstantiated arguments as he can within the short time span allowed for a live "debate", knowing full well that there is no way to adequately address them in such a setting. No, if Connett wants to "debate" this issue then he needs to put his arguments in writing, and have them properly reviewed and addressed by knowledgeable sources. Although Connett purports himself to be some sort of "authority" on fluoridation, the fact is that he has not one, single, peer-reviewed piece of scientific literature on fluoridation, to his name.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 3:55 AM

David Green.....continued

From the CDC:

"The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva. Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed."

To be continued.......

Steven D. Slott

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 3:57 AM

David Green.......continued

As far as the CDC, again, all of the information you seek is readily available from the primary sites. Instead of depending on "fluoridealert****" feed you its "interpretation" of CDC information, why not just go to the CDC website itself and obtain its information unfiltered and unedited? First, "primarily" does not mean "only". Water fluoridation works both systemically and topically. The percentage of each mechanism is irrelevant. The constant exposure of the teeth to low concentrations of fluoride throughout the day is a most effective means of dental decay prevention. Fluoridation provides this. There is no other method of obtaining the amount of dental decay prevention as cost-effectively as water fluoridation.

To be continued.........

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 3:59 AM

David Green......continued

As far as your dependence on snapshots of data to attempt to explain the complex process of dental decay prevention, well, few, if any intelligent people would require an explanation of the fallacy of that "argument". Suffice it to say that it is not possible to accurately assess the efficacy of one factor in decay prevention while controlling for no others. If you care to cite valid, peer-reviewed, scientific studies to support your position, fine. Otherwise you are simply wasting time.

The filtered and edited "information" found on "fluoridealert****" and other such biased, antifluoridationist websites has no value, whatsoever. Your dependence on these dubious sources is one main reason that you remain uninformed on this issue. Again, there is a wealth of accurate information readily available from reliable, respected, and primary sources.

To be continued.......

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 4:03 AM

David Green......continued

The only products of the dissociation of HFA are fluoride ions identical to those which already exist in water and which humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time, and barely detectable trace heavy metal contaminants in concentrations so far below EPA mandated maximum safety levels that it is not even a certainty that these contaminants aren't the ones that exist in all water naturally.

To be continued......

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 4:04 AM

David Green.......continued

There is no such thing as "artificial fluoride" or "artificially fluoridated water". This is simply misinformation you glean from dubious antifluoridationist "sources". Water fluoridation is the process of raising the concentration of fluoride ions in public water systems up to the optimal level for maximum dental decay prevention with no adverse effects. For those water systems which already have an existing level at or above the optimal concentration, no fluoride is needed or added. HFA immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates) at the pH of drinking water. After that point, HFA no longer exists, it does not reach the tap, it is not ingested. Thus, HFA is of no concern, whatsoever.

To be continued.......

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 4:06 AM

David Green........continued

5. Richard Sauerheber, PhD. Sauerhaber is the "scientific consultant" for "Attorney Deal" in his class-action stirring attempts. A look at Deal's website will show Sauerhaber and his opinions plastered all over it. What fees Sauerhaber may or may not receive for his fluoride "consulting" is anyone's guess.

6. Whatever various family members of Connett, and others who are paid by his antifluoridationist group, for their fluoride chasing activities.

7. FAN operates under the umbrella of another activist organization, so its full expenditures are not readily transparent and available as would be expected of such a non-profit group which asks for donations from the public.

So, please, tell us once again who you deem is being "paid" to keep this issue alive.  Are you?

to be continued.......

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 4:07 AM

David Green continued.......

2. The antifluoridationist, William Hirzy. Hirzy is the paid lobbyist for Connett's antifluoridationist group, FAN.  Another salary totally dependent on keeping this issue alive.

3. Close Connett affiliate, "Attorney Deal". James Deal has a website devoted entirely to attempts to stir up frivolous class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably would profit.  No fluoridation "controversy", no chance for lucrative attorney fees.

4. Connett affiliate, Alex Jones. Jones most recently began pushing a concoction that purportedly "removes" fluoride from the body. 

To be continued.......

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 4:16 AM

David Green......continued

1. The antifluoridationist/activist, Paul Connett- Paul's "book" on fluoridation, sales of which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, and from which he receives royalties, sells for $25 per copy. He claims to donate all his royalties to his non-profit Fluoride Action Network, FAN. However, since it seems likely that FAN funds all or part of fluoride-chasing, trips to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, all around the United States, and wherever else he chases it, his "donation" would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.

Additionally, both Paul and his wife each receive $1000 per month from their non-profit organization. Thus, we have book royalties, expenses, plus $2k per month for the Connetts

To be continued.........

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 4:17 AM

David Green

Full disclosure? Certainly.

Let's begin with the "payment" hypocrisy of you, Paul, and most other antifluoridationists. Neither I, nor any other fluoridation advocate of whom I'm aware, is "paid" or receives any compensation, whatsoever, for our efforts to improve the health of all our citizens through correcting the mounds of misinformation constantly disseminated by uninformed antifluoridationists. Now, contrast this with your antifluoridationist leadership:

to be continued.........

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidGreen

Jan-11-14 3:09 PM

No I am not paid, Steve, and I am glad to hear that you aren't either, so we know it is just your professional credibility that is at stake. By the way, Dr Connett arrived by bus to Oshawa Ontario on Thursday. When he speaks his travel expenses are covered by the group who asks him to come and he is quite happy to stay with someone to avoid the expense of a hotel room.

Your portrayal of people opposed to fluoridation as being in it for the money is a little comical given all the money spent trying to buy the votes of minority groups by the fluoridation folks in Portland and all the money spent over the years by industry to influence public perception about fluoride risks.

I am still looking for the research that backs your suggestion that saliva fluoride levels of 16-18 ppb have any benefit in protecting teeth more than 4-6 ppb. Do you have anything or is that just a speculation?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidGreen

Jan-11-14 3:23 PM

Also Steve, I am still not clear on whether you consider the data from WHO for 12 year-olds valid. Do you have something that refutes that?

Your excuse for not wanting to debate Dr. Connett is not uncommon. It would be equally valid if he said the same thing, yet he hasn't. In fact he has asked for a point by point rebuttal of the arguments made in his book but no one has taken him up on it. Why don't you do that? What exactly are you afraid of? I have been in business for 31 years and one thing we always say is never say anything negative about the competition, because it shows that you are afraid of them. The other fitting line here is: "The person losing an argument is the one doing the most talking".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 7:00 PM

David Green

You were the one who brought up the standard, unsubstantiated antifluoridationist allegation of fluoridation advocates being "paid", not I. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy in so doing. I could not care less how much Connett, his family, or any of his affiliates profit by keeping this issue alive. That's entirely up to them and those who choose to pay heed to their nonsense. In regard to your hypocrisy, I have no doubt whatsoever that were any fluoridation advocates being paid that which Connett and his people are being paid,mthat you would ge amongst the first in line to criticize such blatant conflict of interests. Be that as it may, if you don't want Connett's dirty laundry exposed then you need to get past the antifluoridationist obsession with advocates being somehow "paid" and concentrate on properly educating yourself on this issue.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-11-14 7:13 PM

David Green

As far as your question about the WHO data, the question itself demonstrates your ignorance of scientific study. It is not the data which is in question. It is your attempting to use that data to assess the efficacy of fluoridation, which is the absurdity. With no controls for confounding factors it is ludicrous to attempt to use ANY such snapshot of data to assess one preventive factor.

It is of no surprise that you cannot find valid information on fluoride levels in saliva. Antifluoridationist websites do not have such information. Again, if you want accurate, unfiltered, unedited information on fluoridation, stop seeking it from dubious antifluoridationist "sources", and access the information, in its proper context, from the primary sources.

Here is where the CDC info may be found, with full references:

***********cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidGreen

Jan-11-14 8:42 PM

Are you suggesting that my numbers for fluoride levels in saliva in people drinking or not drinking fluoridated water are not accurate?

Thank you for confirming that the WHO data is accurate. So what you are suggesting is that the confounding factors all align in one direction in the countries that fluoridate and in the other in countries that don't in order to give the appearance that there is no difference when in fact there is. That doesn't sound too scientific to me.

Should we get back to the NIDR study again that gets more or less the same result. .6 of a tooth surface saved out of 128.

Then there are the studies that show no change or a lessening of decay in communities that end fluoridation. The study in Comox/Courtenay B.C. is interesting in that the results were never published in Canada and no one would have known about them if they hadn't been published in Denmark. Does that strike you as honest science or political protection of policy?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-12-14 5:02 AM

David Green.......continued

Even if you subscribe to "0.6 of a tooth surface being saved", untreated decay in but one tooth surface can and does lead to untold amounts of pain, debilitation, loss of multiple, or all of, teeth, systemic illness, life-threatening infection, and even death. Attempts to trivialize untreated dental disease which could be prevented by water fluoridation demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the overwhelming problem of dental disease in this country and most others.

Your conspiracy theories in regard to what you personally consider to be "honest science" are irrelevant.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-12-14 5:05 AM

David Green.......continued

From the CDC:

"Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity. However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1--2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization."

***********cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

Obviously, what "doesn't sound too scientific" to you, is irrelevant.

to be continued.....

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SSlott

Jan-12-14 5:06 AM

David Green

I'm not "suggesting" anything. I state facts. How you choose to personally attempt to interpret these facts is irrelevant.

Once again, the percentage of topical versus systemic effect of water fluoridation is irrelevant in regard to the success of this public health initiative in preventing dental decay. Countless peer-reviewed studies have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of this initiative. However, as you still seem hung up on saliva concentrations:

to be continued........

Steven D. Slott

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidGreen

Jan-12-14 11:41 AM

Steve, Thank you for pulling up that statement from the CDC. So an organization that you consider credible, and which has acknowledged that fluorides effect is primarily topical, also acknowledges that the difference in saliva fluoride levels between those drinking fluoridated water and those not, is unlikely to have any effect on decay.

I think you have just made my case for me, unless you are suggesting that fluoridated water is having a topical effect as it passes through the mouth on its way to the stomach.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 26 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web