|
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
How Poisonmongers Work
The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them -- because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.
A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.
A key factor in any anti campaign is the use of printed matter. Because of this, antis are very eager to have their views printed. Scientific journals will rarely publish them, but most local newspapers are willing to express minority viewpoints regardless of whether facts support them. A few editors even welcome the controversy the antis generate -- expecting that it will increase readership.
The aim of anti "documents" is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. Often they quote statements that are out of date or out of context. Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals are often used. Another favored tactic is to misquote a profluoridation scientist, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original misquote.
Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances -- even pure water -- can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone.
"Experts" are commonly quoted. It is possible to find someone with scientific credentials who is against just about anything. Most "experts" who speak out against fluoridation, however, are not experts on the subject. There are, of course, a few dentists and physicians who oppose fluoridation. Some of them object to fluoridation as a form of government intrusion, even though they know it is safe and effective.
|
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPr.../fluoride.html
This is a locked PDF from the ADA, it has a lot of fun facts, such as there have been 60,000 studies on the safety of fluoridation.
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/flu...tion_facts.pdf
Quote:
CONCLUSIONS
* Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoridated areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident. Fewer caries are associated with fewer abscesses and extractions of teeth and with improved health. The health and economic benefits of water fluoridation accrue to individuals of all ages and socioeconomic groups, especially to poor children.
* Since the addition of fluoride to drinking water in the 1940's, other sources of fluoride have become available, including toothpastes, mouth rinses, and fluoride dietary supplements. These sources of fluoride also have proven to be effective in preventing dental caries.
* Estimates developed for this report show that fluoride exposure is generally greater in fluoridated areas; however, there is fluoride exposure in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas because of the variety of fluoride sources besides drinking water. Beverages and foods are sources of fluoride, especially if they have been prepared with fluoridated drinking water.
* Optimal fluoridation of drinking water does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data available to date, including the new studies prepared for this report. While the presence of fluoride in sources other than drinking water reduces the ability to discriminate between exposure in fluoridated as compared to non-fluoridated communizes, no trends in cancer risk, including the risk of osteosarcoma, were attributed to the introduction of fluoride into drinking water in these new studies. During two time periods, 1973-1980 and 1981-1987, there was an unexplained increase of osteosarcoma in males under age 20. The reason for this increase remains to be clarified, but an extensive analysis reveals that it is unrelated to the introduction and duration of fluoridation.
* There are two methodologically acceptable studies of the carcinogenicity of fluoride in experimental animals. The Procter and Gamble study did not find any significant evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice of either sex. In the NTP study there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and in female rats. Male rats showed "equivocal" evidence of carcinogenicity based on the finding of a small number of osteosarcomas. "Equivocal" evidence is defined by NTP as "...interpreted as showing a marginal increase in neoplasms that may be chemically related" (HHS, 1990). Taken together, the data available at this time from these two animal studies fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer.
* By comparison with the 1940's, the total prevalence of dental fluorosis has increased in non-fluoridated areas and may have increased in optimally fluoridated areas. Such increases in dental fluorosis in a population signify that total fluoride exposures have increased and may be more than are necessary to prevent dental caries. For this reason, prudent public health practice dictates the reduction of unnecessary and inappropriate fluoride exposure.
* In the 1940s, drinking water and food were the major sources of fluoride exposure. Since then, additional sources of fluoride have become available through the introduction of fluoride containing dental products. Although the use of these products is likely responsible for some of the declines in caries scores, the inappropriate use of these products has also likely contributed to the observed increases in the prevalence of very mild and mild forms of dental fluorosis.
* Further epidemiological studies are required to determine whether or not an association exists between various levels of fluoride in drinking water and bone fractures.
* Crippling skeletal fluorosis is not a public health problem in the United States, as evidenced by the reports of only five cases in 30 years. Crippling skeletal fluorosis, a chronic bone and joint disease associated with extended exposure to high levels of fluoride, has been more prevalent in some regions outside the United States.
* Well-controlled studies have not demonstrated a beneficial effect of the use of high doses of fluoride in reducing osteoporosis and related bone fractures.
* Genotoxicity studies of fluoride, which are highly dependent on the methods used, often show contradictory findings. The most consistent finding is that fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in standard tests in bacteria (Ames Test). In some studies with different methodologies, fluoride has been reported to induce mutations and chromosome aberrations in cultured rodent and human cells. The genotoxicity of fluoride in humans and animals is unresolved despite numerous studies.
* Chronic low level fluoride exposure is nor associated with birth defects. Studies also fail to establish an association between fluoride and Down Syndrome.
* There is no indication that chronic low level fluoride exposure of normal individuals presents a problem in other organ systems, such as the gastrointestinal, the genitourinary, and the respiratory systems. The effects of fluoride on the reproductive system merit further investigation in animal and human studies.
|
Quote:
Here are some national bodies that have endorsed fluoridation of water supplies:
* American Medical Association
* American Dental Association
* American Public Health Association
* American Pharmaceutical Association
* American Nurses Association
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* National Research Council
* National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
* American Water Works Association
* American Hospital Association
* U.S. Public Health Service
* National Congress of Parents and Teachers.
|
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host
Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
|