[PLUG-TALK] topic of the day ... discuss!

Russell Senior seniorr at aracnet.com
Sat May 4 21:18:15 UTC 2013


>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at gate.kl-ic.com> writes:

glen> Strikes me as a very ham-handed and lazy approach to the problem
glen> of oral hygiene, an overly general modification to the
glen> environment in order to treat a very specific cohort of the
glen> population.  When applying overly general solutions to specific
glen> problems, you run the risk of an explosion in side effects.
glen> I.e. the cure becomes worse than the disease.  [...]

Russell> I think it's worth pointing out that there has been
Russell> significant opportunity to test these risks and they have
Russell> been found to be very low in practice.  Except for some mild
Russell> cosmetic fluorosis of teeth, it seems the risks (even if
Russell> real) are very small and demonstrably not explosive compared
Russell> to the benefits.

Keith> People are not peas in a pod.  The minimum effective dose of a
Keith> pharmaceutical for one patient will kill another.  

Chemicals are likewise not peas in a pod.  Is there any evidence that
fluoride has this property of killing/harming people at 0.7ppm?  How
about at 0.16ppm (maximum measured in portland water intake in 2011)?

Keith> [...] fluoride interferes with chelation treatment [of metal
Keith> poisoning] as well as the natural passage of these metals out
Keith> of the body.

Do you have a citation for that?  At what level of fluoride?

If the number of negatively affected people is small (which I assume
it is), then the aggregate cost of mitigation for them will also be
small.

Keith> Those patients can spend $$$$ for RO water purifiers and
Keith> non-local food.  [...]

Most agricultural irrigation is not going to be using city-treated
water, if that's your concern.  Also, presumably, anyone sensitive to
fluoride should avoid ingesting foods with fluoride, like pickles,
grape juice, spinach, carrots, etc.

Keith> We have fluoridated for years, some say, and there's never been
Keith> proof of harm.  But it is harder than you might imagine to find
Keith> such proof.  [...]

Difficulty in finding proof does not mean there is proof to be found.
You can imagine there is something to find, and perhaps even
guestimate a potential risk, but until you actually *find* some
evidence of harm, you are just guessing.  Finding evidence and
demonstrating harm might well be hard, but it is essential to actually
learning anything you can rely on.  Otherwise, we are just sticking
pins in dolls.

Keith> And the scary thing?  Newer studies show fewer benefits.  It is
Keith> now about 10% improvement, the old claims were 2x or higher.

10% * bignum => significant benefit

Keith> The studies are popping out regressions for other problems in
Keith> other parts of the body, which dentists don't pay attention to.

Keith> Like dentists not paying attention to the risks of mercury
Keith> amalgam.  Which they should have.  There is a fierce battle
Keith> going on today in dentistry over amalgam - and since the
Keith> mercury follows the patients, you would think definitive
Keith> conclusions would be would be much easier to tease out of the
Keith> data.

Less fluoride -> more cavities -> more amalgam -> more mercury
exposure.  Which is the bigger risk?


-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list