An Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about the water fluoridation controversy which arises from moral, ethical, political, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies.
The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation. Instead, fluoride is added to most table salt in Europe.
Those opposed argue that water fluoridation imposes ethical issues, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.
The weight of the scientific evidence have found that at the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children’s teeth during tooth development.
This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health. Despite opponents’ concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.
Check this out
Adverse Health Effects of Water Fluoridation
Figures released by the U.S. National Centre for Health Statistics reveal that the ten cities with the worst rate of infant mortality have all been artificially fluoridated at least 17 years or longer! After the first full year of fluoridation, Kansas city’s (USA) infant mortality increased 13% (The Kansas City Star 21.11.82). After the fifth year of fluoridation in Kansas city, infant mortality increased 36% (Kansas City Star 26.2.87). Japan, with no fluoridation, has the lowest infant mortality rate in the industrialised world, and the longest life expectancy. (3)
“…Full-scale retrospective epidemiological (population) studies whose scientific value has been demonstrated before the courts have revealed that there is a marked correlation between increased cancer mortality rates and artificial flouridation of public water supplies…”
Dr. J Benoit-Bundock, Senior Adviser to the Minister of the Environment, Quebec, Canada, 1979, in a government report recommending against fluoridation of Quebec’s water supplies (4)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice John P. Flaherty, after holding a lengthy series of judicial hearings, issued an injunction against the use of fluoride:
“The evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply…is extremely deleterious to the human body. A review of evidence will disclose that there was no evidence to the contrary… Prior to my hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any thought… I seriously believe that few responsible people have objectively reviewed the evidence.” (5)
“A family sized tube of fluoride toothpaste contains sufficient fluoride to kill a 3.6 kg baby.” Dr.G.E Smith 1983 (7)
“Thus some of the serious charges that are being laid at its door- genetic damage, birth defects, cancer and allergy response – may arise from fluoride interference after all” New Scientist 22 January 1981 (6)
The Journal of the American Medical Association, February 10, 1951 had this to say about fluoride:
“Chronic intoxications resulting from prolonged intake of smaller amounts of fluoride include dental fluorosis, … Fluorine also tends to accumulate in the bones, leading to hypercalcifications and brittleness. Ligaments and tendons also become calcified. Serious symptoms may ensue, such as loss of mobility of joints, easy fracture and pressure on the spinal cord. Other effects include baldness in young men, anemia and decreased blood clotting power. And in women, painful menstruation, lowered birth rate, high incidence of fracture, thyroid alterations and liver damage.” (8)
Water fluoridation effectively reduces cavities in both children and adults:[9] earlier studies showed that water fluoridation reduced childhood cavities by fifty to sixty percent, but more recent studies show lower reductions (18–40%) likely due to increasing use of fluoride from other sources, notably toothpaste, and also the ‘halo effect’ of food and drink that is made in fluoridated areas and consumed in unfluoridated ones.[2]
A 2000 systematic review found that water fluoridation was statistically associated with a decreased proportion of children with cavities (the median of mean decreases was 14.6%, the range −5 to 64%), and with a decrease in decayed, missing, and filled primary teeth (the median of mean decreases was 2.25 teeth, the range 0.5–4.4 teeth),[11] which is roughly equivalent to preventing 40% of cavities.[54] The review found that the evidence was of moderate quality: few studies attempted to reduce observer bias, control forconfounding factors, report variance measures, or use appropriate analysis. Although no major differences between natural and artificial fluoridation were apparent, the evidence was inadequate for a conclusion about any differences.[11] Fluoride also prevents cavities in adults of all ages. There are fewer studies in adults however, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically applied fluoride. A 2007 meta-analysis found that water fluoridation prevented an estimated 27% of cavities in adults (95% confidence interval [CI] 19–34%), about the same fraction as prevented by exposure to any delivery method of fluoride (29% average, 95% CI: 16–42%).[55] A 2002 systematic review found strong evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing overall tooth decay in communities.[56] A 2015 Cochrane review found that water fluoridation was effective at reducing caries levels in children, but that most of the evidence for its effectiveness came from studies conducted before 1975.[57]
Most countries in Europe have experienced substantial declines in cavities without the use of water fluoridation.[3] For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped. Fluoridation may be useful in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride.[15] The effectiveness of water fluoridation can vary according to circumstances such as whether preventive dental care is free to all children.[58]
Some studies suggest that fluoridation reduces oral health inequalities between the rich and poor, but the evidence is limited.[3]There is anecdotal but not scientific evidence that fluoride allows more time for dental treatment by slowing the progression of tooth decay, and that it simplifies treatment by causing most cavities to occur in pits and fissures of teeth.
What do you think about this though?
Adverse Health Effects of Water Fluoridation
Figures released by the U.S. National Centre for Health Statistics reveal that the ten cities with the worst rate of infant mortality have all been artificially fluoridated at least 17 years or longer! After the first full year of fluoridation, Kansas city’s (USA) infant mortality increased 13% (The Kansas City Star 21.11.82). After the fifth year of fluoridation in Kansas city, infant mortality increased 36% (Kansas City Star 26.2.87). Japan, with no fluoridation, has the lowest infant mortality rate in the industrialised world, and the longest life expectancy. (3)
“…Full-scale retrospective epidemiological (population) studies whose scientific value has been demonstrated before the courts have revealed that there is a marked correlation between increased cancer mortality rates and artificial flouridation of public water supplies…”
Dr. J Benoit-Bundock, Senior Adviser to the Minister of the Environment, Quebec, Canada, 1979, in a government report recommending against fluoridation of Quebec’s water supplies (4)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice John P. Flaherty, after holding a lengthy series of judicial hearings, issued an injunction against the use of fluoride:
“The evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply…is extremely deleterious to the human body. A review of evidence will disclose that there was no evidence to the contrary… Prior to my hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any thought… I seriously believe that few responsible people have objectively reviewed the evidence.” (5)
“A family sized tube of fluoride toothpaste contains sufficient fluoride to kill a 3.6 kg baby.” Dr.G.E Smith 1983 (7)
“Thus some of the serious charges that are being laid at its door- genetic damage, birth defects, cancer and allergy response – may arise from fluoride interference after all” New Scientist 22 January 1981 (6)
The Journal of the American Medical Association, February 10, 1951 had this to say about fluoride:
“Chronic intoxications resulting from prolonged intake of smaller amounts of fluoride include dental fluorosis, … Fluorine also tends to accumulate in the bones, leading to hypercalcifications and brittleness. Ligaments and tendons also become calcified. Serious symptoms may ensue, such as loss of mobility of joints, easy fracture and pressure on the spinal cord. Other effects include baldness in young men, anemia and decreased blood clotting power. And in women, painful menstruation, lowered birth rate, high incidence of fracture, thyroid alterations and liver damage.” (8)
Only a few countries fluoridate their water supplies to prevent tooth decay: the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. While it was done with the best intentions, and has been hailed as a public health triumph by the Centers of Disease Control and the American Dental Association, countless conspiracy theorists are again taking to the web to declare that fluoridated water is proof of government malevolence.
This isn’t anything new. Back in the Cold War era, critics were claiming that water fluoridation was part of a communist mind-control scheme. In recent years water fluoridation has become a pervasive health and political issue in many countries, resulting in some halting water fluoridation altogether. But the debate has not been rooted in conspiracy theories, it focuses on whether government authorities have the legal basis to add chemicals to drinking water that do not improve its safety. Furthermore, consumers of public water cannot opt-out of fluoridated tap water and go with another utility. So this form of compulsory mass medication is actually a valid topic of discussion.
Still, to date, the only proven negative consequence of water fluoridation is dental fluorosis, which can create pitting and mottling on children’s teeth, a condition which is mostly cosmetic. Also, there are some concerns expressed by the National Kidney Foundation, which has called for more research into fluoridation’s effects on those with renal diseases.
Some environmental organizations, like the Sierra Club, are also opposed to water fluoridation because of possible health risks and the impact of fluoridated water on the environment when the water gets into the soil.
There’s nothing wrong with public advocacy groups taking stands for or against fluoridation using valid arguments, but the renewed public-policy and health debate is perverted and exaggerated by conspiracy theorists. The most outrageous theory on water fluoridation is that it’s being used by governments to make their citizens passive and lethargic, and that it’s virtually the same thing as Prozac (they’re actually chemically dissimilar).
The modern version of the conspiracy theory claims we learned about water fluoridation from the Nazis, who gave it to Jews in concentration camps to make them docile. But this conspiracy theory upsets other anti-fluoridation activists. Paul Connett, the co-author of the book The Case Against Fluoride says, “We have done our level best to discourage opponents of fluoridation from using this emotive argument. The historical evidence for this assertion is extremely weak. It is sad that the U.S. media has done such a bad job of educating the public on this issue that it is so easy for crazy ideas to fill the vacuum.”
The U.S. Holocaust Museum has stated that it has never heard of fluoride being used by Nazis as a mind-control drug.
Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation.[10] There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma.[10][11] Other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.[11] A Finnish study published in 1997 showed that fear that water is fluoridated may have a psychological effect with a large variety of symptoms, regardless of whether the water is actually fluoridated.
Despite opponents’ concerns, water fluoridation has NOT been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults. NOT been effective. In some cases it’s even been detrimental, though the connection there is correlative not causal. However, fluoride does NOT improve dental health- as they said in the film, all one need do is look at the scientific literature to realize this.
Plus, the fact that it’s not even pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride, but industrial-byproduct grade hydrofluorosilicic acid. That’s not even a fluoride, it’s a silicate.
Bullshit. There is good evidence that fluoride reduces caries. The evidence that it is harmful is like the evidence that cell phones cause cancer – That is to say, non-existant to the extent that no study could find anything significant enough to even be called a finding.
Personally I don’t give a shit if fluoride gives you everlasting life or death by cancer in two years max.
The point is – if I want fluoride in my water I’ll damn well put it in myself.
Despite opponents’ concerns, water fluoridation has NOT been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults. NOT been effective. In some cases it’s even been detrimental, though the connection there is correlative not causal. However, fluoride does NOT improve dental health- as they said in the film, all one need do is look at the scientific literature to realize this.
Plus, the fact that it’s not even pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride, but industrial-byproduct grade hydrofluorosilicic acid. That’s not even a fluoride, it’s a hydrofluoride.
You like your Fluor so much? You probably had to much of it.
Do your own research
Exactly, fluoride is good for you.
This film is just silly. Not a single piece of research is quoted. In fact, by producing a film like this without any evidence, the makers are doing more damage to their cause.
Go to 2:11:30. “I talk to a lot of these people who have hyperthyroidism, and they become white with anger when they find out the POSSIBILITY of the fact that their thyroid condition MAY have been caused or exacerbated by fluorides.”
By that reasoning there is a POSSIBILITY that my uncle MAY have got cancer from the Nuclear Medicine ward of the local hospital because it’s just down the road from his house. Sure, there is an insanely ridiculously small possibility of this, but unless I actually have some actual evidence of it I should do the decent thing and SHUT THE HELL UP. Rather than start a group of nut jobs trying to shut down all the isotopic medicine in the whole country – medicine which saves countless lives a year.
People have a problem, like a skin rash, and then jump on the nearest thing closer than arms length. It must be fluoridation! This happens with all manner of things, it’s human nature. But what matters is the evidence, and for fluoridation there is plenty! But it’s all FOR it, as this film itself proves. So:
GO Fluoridation! It’s great for you, and there is no evidence it harms you.
peanutaxis, there is no evidence out that ingesting it is beneficial for a human’s overall health. Topically, possibly. Could you provide some research that states that it is beneficial to overall health?
There doesn’t need to be a net benefit to a human’s “overall” health,
all types of medicines, herbs, teas bear various effects, some
positive, some negative, some in between. Arbitrary qualitative
evaluation is pointless; what’s truly “beneficial” to ones health – some
may argue consuming absolutely NO medicine is the only natural
solution.
So… as you clearly recognise we can only rely on
facts and evidence. And so I refer you to the greatest scientific minds
of the United States and/or potentially the entire world. Recruited from
the highest level of education and work daily on practical disease
control employed at the http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/ or such global
institutions where you can read their studies.
You ‘can’ argue
it’s biased due to some underlying conspiracy at the governmental level
but then you might as well flee the country, the police are probably
tapping your calls and ready to crash your door the second you rebel
against “the institution”. How about you solely evaluate the vast
experience and depth of scientific knowledge of the scientists at the
CDC vs the scientists backing the majority of studies you likely refer.
Regardless,
the issue is clearly debatable, as is any form of science and
questioning is welcomed however the “evidence” you refer have already
been thoroughly considered and dismissed and the highest minds available
to our generation have evidenced through research that fluoridation is
better than no fluoridation. On this basis in lieu of any new revelatory
evidence against fluoridation, I’m fine with the policy.
(When I
say “you” I refer to the anti-fluoridation conspiracy agenda. Not you
specifically although you appear to be a subscriber of their paranoia.)
There doesn’t need to be a net benefit to a human’s “overall” health,
all types of medicines, herbs, teas bear various effects, some
positive, some negative, some in between. Arbitrary qualitative
evaluation is pointless; what’s truly “beneficial” to ones health – some
may argue consuming absolutely NO medicine is the only natural
solution.
So… as you clearly recognise we can only rely on
facts and evidence. And so I refer you to the greatest scientific minds
of the United States and/or potentially the entire world. Recruited from
the highest level of education and work daily on practical disease
control employed at the http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/ or such global
institutions where you can read their studies.
You ‘can’ argue
it’s biased due to some underlying conspiracy at the governmental level
but then you might as well flee the country, the police are probably
tapping your calls and ready to crash your door the second you rebel
against “the institution”. How about you solely evaluate the vast
experience and depth of scientific knowledge of the scientists at the
CDC vs the scientists backing the majority of studies you likely refer.
Regardless,
the issue is clearly debatable, as is any form of science and
questioning is welcomed however the “evidence” you refer have already
been thoroughly considered and dismissed and the highest minds available
to our generation have evidenced through research that fluoridation is
better than no fluoridation. On this basis in lieu of any new revelatory
evidence against fluoridation, I’m fine with the policy.
(When I
say “you” I refer to the anti-fluoridation conspiracy agenda. Not you
specifically although you appear to be a subscriber of their paranoia.)
Well I don’t know about you, but I like my water to be just water.
My teeth are in pefect shape, have never had any cavities, and have never had to injest ridiculous chemicals to achieve this.
Like anything in life, results are achieved through simple common sense.
Conspiracy or not, it’s insane to polute our waters for the minute chance it does something good for the people, people who do not take good care or their bodies in the first place.
You drink/drank fluoridated water, though, didn’t you. LOL