SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Second Thoughts About Fluoride
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Second Thoughts About Fluoride (Excerpts)
Second Thoughts about Fluoride. by Dan Fagin.
Scientific American, January 2008, pages 74–81
(Full Article available online for $4.95.)
KEY CONCEPTS
• Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
• A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults
Page 75: Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.
Page 75: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: Fluoride is in many foods, beverages and dental products. The ubiquity of the cavity-fighting chemical can result in overconsumption, particularly among young children.
Page 78: Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift in the country where the practice began.
Page 79: But enamel fluorosis, except in the severest cases, has no health impact beyond lowered self-esteem: the tooth marks are unattractive and do not go away (although there are masking treatments). The much more important question is whether fluoride’s effects extend beyond altering the biochemistry of tooth enamel formation. Says longtime fluoride researcher Pamela DenBesten of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry: “We certainly can see that fluoride impacts the way proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular level? Fluoride is very powerful, and it needs to be treated respectfully.”
Page 80: Clashes over the possible neurological effects of fluoride have been just as intense. Phyllis Mullenix, then at the Forsyth Institute in Boston, set off a firestorm in the early 1990s when she reported that experiments on lab rats showed that sodium fluoride can accumulate in brain tissue and affect animal behavior. Prenatal exposures, she reported, correlated with hyperactivity in young rats, especially males, whereas exposures after birth had the opposite effect, turning female rats into what Mullenix later described as “couch potatoes.” Although her research was eventually published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, it was attacked by other scientists who said that her methodology was flawed and that she had used unrealistically high dosages. Since then, however, a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ, and research has also suggested a possible mechanism: the formation of aluminum fluoride complexes—small inorganic molecules that mimic the structure of phosphates and thus influence enzyme activity in the brain. There is also some evidence that the silicofluorides used in water fluoridation may enhance the uptake of lead into the brain.
Page 80: The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”
Page 80-81: “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”
Page 81: Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have been emboldened by the NRC report. “What the committee did was very, very important, because it’s the first time a truly balanced panel has looked at this and raised important questions,” says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, one of the most active antifluoridation groups world-wide. “I absolutely believe it’s a scientific turning point because now everything’s on the table. Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S., and it’s time we talked about it.”
Page 80: A FLUORIDE DIET
The optimal range for daily intake of fluoride—the level that maximizes protection against tooth decay but minimizes other risks— is generally considered to be 0.05 to 0.07 milligram for each kilogram of body weight. Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm), found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry.
3.73 ppm Brewed black tea
2.34 ppm Raisins
2.02 ppm White wine
1.09 ppm Apple- flavored juice drink
0.91 ppm Brewed coffee
0.71 ppm Tap water (U.S.-wide average)
0.61 ppm Chicken soup broth
0.60 ppm Diet Coke (U.S.-wide average)
0.48 ppm Hot dog
0.46 ppm Grapefruit juice
0.45 ppm Beer
0.45 ppm Baked russet potatoes
0.35 ppm Cheddar cheese
0.33 ppm Flour tortillas
0.32 ppm Creamed corn (baby food)
0.23 ppm Chocolate ice cream
0.13 ppm Brewed chamomile tea
0.03 ppm Milk (2%)
Second Thoughts about Fluoride. by Dan Fagin.
Scientific American, January 2008, pages 74–81
(Full Article available online for $4.95.)
KEY CONCEPTS
• Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
• A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults
Page 75: Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.
Page 75: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: Fluoride is in many foods, beverages and dental products. The ubiquity of the cavity-fighting chemical can result in overconsumption, particularly among young children.
Page 78: Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift in the country where the practice began.
Page 79: But enamel fluorosis, except in the severest cases, has no health impact beyond lowered self-esteem: the tooth marks are unattractive and do not go away (although there are masking treatments). The much more important question is whether fluoride’s effects extend beyond altering the biochemistry of tooth enamel formation. Says longtime fluoride researcher Pamela DenBesten of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry: “We certainly can see that fluoride impacts the way proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular level? Fluoride is very powerful, and it needs to be treated respectfully.”
Page 80: Clashes over the possible neurological effects of fluoride have been just as intense. Phyllis Mullenix, then at the Forsyth Institute in Boston, set off a firestorm in the early 1990s when she reported that experiments on lab rats showed that sodium fluoride can accumulate in brain tissue and affect animal behavior. Prenatal exposures, she reported, correlated with hyperactivity in young rats, especially males, whereas exposures after birth had the opposite effect, turning female rats into what Mullenix later described as “couch potatoes.” Although her research was eventually published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, it was attacked by other scientists who said that her methodology was flawed and that she had used unrealistically high dosages. Since then, however, a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ, and research has also suggested a possible mechanism: the formation of aluminum fluoride complexes—small inorganic molecules that mimic the structure of phosphates and thus influence enzyme activity in the brain. There is also some evidence that the silicofluorides used in water fluoridation may enhance the uptake of lead into the brain.
Page 80: The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”
Page 80-81: “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”
Page 81: Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have been emboldened by the NRC report. “What the committee did was very, very important, because it’s the first time a truly balanced panel has looked at this and raised important questions,” says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, one of the most active antifluoridation groups world-wide. “I absolutely believe it’s a scientific turning point because now everything’s on the table. Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S., and it’s time we talked about it.”
Page 80: A FLUORIDE DIET
The optimal range for daily intake of fluoride—the level that maximizes protection against tooth decay but minimizes other risks— is generally considered to be 0.05 to 0.07 milligram for each kilogram of body weight. Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm), found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry.
3.73 ppm Brewed black tea
2.34 ppm Raisins
2.02 ppm White wine
1.09 ppm Apple- flavored juice drink
0.91 ppm Brewed coffee
0.71 ppm Tap water (U.S.-wide average)
0.61 ppm Chicken soup broth
0.60 ppm Diet Coke (U.S.-wide average)
0.48 ppm Hot dog
0.46 ppm Grapefruit juice
0.45 ppm Beer
0.45 ppm Baked russet potatoes
0.35 ppm Cheddar cheese
0.33 ppm Flour tortillas
0.32 ppm Creamed corn (baby food)
0.23 ppm Chocolate ice cream
0.13 ppm Brewed chamomile tea
0.03 ppm Milk (2%)
46 Comments
rembarQruel, this is completely copy-pasted. Regardless of the interesting SciAm article and its conclusions, your copying-and-pasting is not only boring and cluttering up the sift talk, it also runs contrary to the very concept of skeptical reasoning, in which one thinks for oneself, and to the idea of using primary research on which to base judgements. Altogether this borders on plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty. No, I am not talking about the SciAm paper or the issue of water fluoridation, I am talking about YOU. I have repeatedly asked you to offer original commentary and analysis yourself on original papers, something you have repeatedly failed to do. This rampant copy-pasting, this inability to offer original insight, is something you, alone on Videosift and especially in my Science channel, are guilty of. Now you have an opportunity in which to change. I happen to have read the article in Scientific American you're copying-and-pasting about (heck, I have it right here on my desk), and I expect you to have done so as well, since you felt confident enough in it to post it to the Science Sift Talk. So I'll tell you what I'll do.
I am going to give you 2 days in which to source 2 studies quoted from the original article (you did read it, right, you didn't just copy-and-paste from FluorideAlert.org from this page without reading the original article, did you?) and offer citations, quotes, and analysis of study methodology AND conclusions thereof from both in THEIR ORIGINAL PAPERS WHEN PUBLISHED TO PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS, in other words not with quotes from the Scientific American article but from the papers the SciAm article is quoting, in support of your argument. I think this is only reasonable since I sourced 2 studies from original papers and analyzed in a few hours, and you still failed to respond to them. So, I repeat, I want from you: Citations, quotes, and analysis of study methodology and conclusions from 2 original papers cited by the SciAm article, due in 2 days. I will be fact-checking and making sure that you are not merely taking blurbs from the internet or from the Scientific American article. After you have posted your response, I will respond in kind and give analysis to the best of my ability on the papers you have chosen. This is known, in the layman sense, as peer review.
Seeing as you how you have seen fit to repeatedly call my thinking and character into question, I am returning the favor right now. I am calling you out, and I expect you to step up to the challenge. Failing to do so, you will have labeled yourself as intellectually dishonest and unscientific at your very core, and I will not hesitate to treat and ridicule you as such. This means, for starters, that I will kick this post out of Science, and your little dog, too. And my *ahem* cruel reign will only continue from there. Good day.
MINKupvote that shizzle right there.
choggieIf he does not answer yer call to scholarship, can I give it a go????
Here's a sample.
Chemical Engineering News -1988
"Each year in the United States 80,000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid, 60,000 tons of sodium silicofluoride and 3,000 tons of sodium fluorides are put into public water supplies". In view of research extant, would it be safe to rephrase the previous sentence and say that each year the United States Government allows 143,000 tons of fluoride products to be added to public water supplies to be able to dispose of a great deal of it and at the same time expose an entire country to the adverse effects of long-term, steady exposure?. Probably at 200 tonnes annually as of 1995, this amount has increased. Now, why on Earth would any oligarchic group (a small group) want to do this to tens of millions of people, deliberately and knowingly?
Fuck man, fluoride is toxic, many many countries have outlawed or disallowed ever, having it put in water supplies...the only reason Americans let the shit continue, is because, most of them think flouride helps yer teeth stay big and stwong, and the rest could give a fiddler's fuck.
Flouride poison is a goddamn no-brainer for a layman..."10 greatest acheivements of the 20th century, MY ASS!! I'll take dentures, and a healthy liver and onions thank you!!!
More to come, if qruel backs away, Capt. Peer-review...
qruelthis would have posted early had the page not kept getting hung up in IE.
While rembar would love a pissing match to prove you superior scientific mind, your ego will have to find justification elsewhere. Once again you've shown yourself to be prideful, arrogant and have distorted the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is whether or not posts on the detrimental effects of fluoride should be posted in the science channel.
The only thing I have to "prove" to you is that there have been scientific studies on fluoride (some of them finding detrimental effects) done by scientists. That alone is all I have to prove to be in the science channel, according to the description of your channel.
1. You have equated fluoride research (contrary to your views) with that of creationism and intelligent design. News flash for you, those views are from people with a predefined agenda coming from their religious texts. You even equate it to global warming
2. You have removed another fluoride post from the science channel but never disputed Dr. Phyllis Mullinex's scientific methods for studying the neuotoxicidy of flouride done at the Forsythe Dental Center regarding it's effects on lab animals resembling ADD and hypertension disorders.
3. If you feel the need to "debunk" something feel free to start with the National Research Council. (2006). Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects. In: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C.
Thank you for pointing out that I left off the attribution link to the summary that I provided. You over exaggerate by claiming that this post (summary) bordered on plagiarism as at the top of the post lists the author of the article.
I linked to this summary as the whole sciam article is not online, unless one would like to purchase it. http://www.fluoridealert.org/sc.am.jan.2008.html
rembarThis is not about fluoride, I am not talking about fluoride right now nor will I discuss that topic with you until you complete your assignment. This is about you being an awful poster, someone who has not added to the level of discussion that I regularly participate in this site for. This recent post was just the most grievous of issues, in which you completely did not indicate at all that you had simply lifted the text word for word from another site. And you did not link to this summary at all until your latest comment just minutes ago, you gave no prior indication that the article summary had not in fact been written by you. (I have screen captures of the page if you think you can say otherwise.) And even then, even though I don't accept that it was accidental, even then you added nothing to the discussion. Yet again, you copy and pasted, and brought nothing of value to the table from your own end. I will not stand for it any longer.
Qruel, you now have 1 day and 16 hours left in which to respond to my post. Do not try to change the topic to attack me again or to bring up other random fluoride websites, because I will not be distracted. I want you to respond to my challenge, or submit that you are incapable of rising to the occasion. Good day.
rembarYou over exaggerate by claiming that this post (summary) bordered on plagiarism as at the top of the post lists the author of the article.
In fact, if I hadn't already issued the challenge, I would be tempted to end our discussion right here. You clearly have not even read the article whose summary you have copied and pasted, because you don't even know that the name listed above is the author of the original Scientific American article, not the author of the article summary of the SciAm piece. I'm astounded. For shame.
But alas, I'm being distracted already again. 1 day and 16 hours.
qruel^ talk about conspiracy thoery rembar. sheesh. I thanked you for pointing out that I left off the attribution. I then provided it. Also you'll notice on the original site the hyperlink is embedded in the plug for the article and how much it costs. That did not transfer over and until I learn to embed a hyperlink you have to view them as stand alone urls. Perhaps I missed the rule that states that posting a news article of interst for discussion is NOT allowed in SiftTalk. If in fact that is the case I will be happy to stop.
rembarThat did not transfer over and until I learn to embed a hyperlink you have to view them as stand alone urls.
If that were true you would have added a stand-alone URL to the original post, and you would have made mention of the fact that you were putting this in as a news article, rather than simply putting in the text without mention of where you had taken it from. And that's just a secondary problem, the issue is not merely attribution, but the fact that you were yet-again copying and pasting.
1 day, 16 hours. I am in earnest, Qruel.
JAPRI have just one thing to say:
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
I rest my case.
qruel^It's amusing to watch as rembar twist and turns this thread into something other than his denial of the validity of scientific research on the detrimental affects of fluoride. Of course you don't want to talk about the scientific studies on fluoride, because then you have to acknowledge that there are in fact scientific studies on fluoride (that show evidence contrary to what your views are)
You are incorrect in assuming that I thought the author listed was the author of the summary. fluoridealert wrote the summary, the authors name at top is that of the sciam author. Perhaps you misunderstood as I was refering to your overexaggeration that I was plagurizing.
You are also incorrect to equate this subject with that of creationsim and intelligent design.
rembarYou are incorrect in assuming that I thought the author listed was the author of the summary. fluoridealert wrote the summary, the authors name at top is that of the sciam author. Perhaps you misunderstood as I was refering to your overexaggeration that I was plagurizing.
I already said that the author's name at the top is the SciAm author, so either you didn't know that, or you don't know what plagiarism is. You were plagiarizing the work of the author of the summary. And stop trying to change the subject into more attacks on me.
From my first comment in this thread, I have said, this is not about fluoride, this is about you and your continued refusal to create your own analysis and commentary rather than taking other peoples'.
1 day, 15 hours.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Irrespective of the flouride debate- it's kind of condescending to be giving "assignments" to people with an opposing view.
Also, if these are selected extracts from SciAm to prove a point, I don't think it's plagiarism. It's not like he pasted the whole article.
rembarIrrespective of the flouride debate- it's kind of condescending to be giving "assignments" to people with an opposing view.
I'm not giving the assignment to Qruel because I oppose his viewpoint on water fluoridation. I'm challenging Qruel to step up, because up until now having a "debate" with him has only resulted in him dropping a deluge of copy-pasted articles, and everything else getting lost in the fold. In the sifts that I have viewed, he has brought down the level of conversation and increased the noise-to-signal ratio significantly. I am challenging Qruel because I want him, for once, to break that habit and rise above. And I know for a fact that I am not alone in that desire.
Also, if these are selected extracts from SciAm to prove a point, I don't think it's plagiarism. It's not like he pasted the whole article.
It is plagiarism. I wasn't accusing him of plagiarising Scientific American, I was accusing him of plagiarising the article summary from this page. If you view the page, you will see that Qruel did just copy and paste everything over. It is, in fact, like he pasted the whole article.
In the years of my education, and in the lines of work I have been in, plagiarism is one of the most serious intellectual crimes that can ever be perpetrated. Plagiarists in top universities have been EXPELLED and in research have had their careers ENDED on their first offense for doing in essence what Qruel just did. I say this so that you will understand that I am not leveling this accusation lightly, nor am I doing it condescendingly. I am very, very much in earnest.
I had expected Qruel to post about the SciAm article, since it has been pretty actively discussed in the public health community since it was published, insofar as any non-peer-reviewed-publication article is, so I began writing a response when I saw he posted about it. I was surprised and angered when I googled a sentence from Qruel's post in order to look for a source for one of his statements, only to discover that he had not actually written those statements, and that I was basically taking a debate up against another person entirely, and that Qruel had yet again not put any thought into a post that I was about to spend much effort arguing against in order to discuss the intricate details hidden in the SciAm article and the studies that lie behind it.
Since you brought it to my attention, I will attempt to not be condescending, as you put it, and I will try to keep a civil tongue as long as I can, but I am not going to sit idly by and let this fly. My challenge, unless you so happen to decide it is against the rules of this site (and I do not believe it is), still stands.
qruel^lots of smoke and mirrors from rembar. hype up and overexaggerate a false claim about me plagarizing when it was a simple oversight that was quickly acknowledged and corrected. Feel free to take a look through any of my posts on fluoride and one would see attributions all over the place. I have no need or desire to claim anothers work for myself. I've already stated why I posted the summary and how the link got left off. As far as I'm concerned the case is closed on that aspect. So you can quit the feigned outrage and shock rembar.
Why on earth would I appease your ego on this subject when you've already stated that it is the equivilent of creationism and intelligent design ?
Insults like that show you are not open minded, so why bother debating you on the specifics?
the short of it is as I've been saying all along. There are scientific studies that have been done by scientist on the subject of fluoride (finding results that you apparently aren't aware of or do not agree with). That does not make them any less scientific (meaning this subject should still be included in the science channel)
simple as that
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Plagiarism: Presenting the words or ideas of someone else as your own without proper acknowledgement of the source.
It would be plagiarism if qruel was claiming this article as his work. It's obvious that he's not. It might be a copyright violation, but certainly not plagiarism. It's a pretty serious accusation- and I don't think warranted in this case. Unless there's something else you're referring to.
I won't mete myself into the debate on what should or shouldn't be in a channel. channel managers have the authority to decide that (as long as the posts don't violate site-wide rules). However, I call for civility on this issue, as it's contentious and personal for many people.
rembarPlagiarism: Presenting the words or ideas of someone else as your own without proper acknowledgement of the source.
It would be plagiarism if qruel was claiming this article as his work. It's obvious that he's not. It might be a copyright violation, but certainly not plagiarism. It's a pretty serious accusation- and I don't think warranted in this case.
It's obvious he's not claiming it now, after I responded and he began posting follow-up comments. If I had not called him out on that, it would not be obvious at all. That in and of itself is pretty clear to me as plagiarism. His presentation of the article without attribution would be plagiarism in an academic setting, and I don't see any reason to treat it differently in this environment.
In either case, plagiarism or not, I don't want to be sidetracked. My main issue with Qruel's rampant copy-pasting still stands. While all other members of the site I have ever had conversations with have put in their own effort and insight to conversations, Qruel floods sifts with whatever he can google up without ever taking the time to read and respond coherently and intelligently to comments. When I take him up for points, he continues to return to his position of "Scientists wrote it, therefore it's science, therefore you're being unscientific if you don't agree and therefore it belongs in the Science channel. And if you disagree, prove all the scientists wrong or you're a bad scientist." No, no, and no. I am not here to prove anything. If I were to go about arguing against conclusions of such studies all day, I'd sure as hell make sure I'd be getting paid for it, and even then the burden of proof lies not on my shoulders, and not on the shoulders of the scientists performing the studies for that matter.
Qruel is the one taking studies and using them to his own ends. It is for this that he is responsible for forming and defending his own arguments. This is a hard and fast principle of ethics and procedure in science, and it is something I have repeatedly tried to explain to Qruel, but he only responds by copying more articles into a thread and trying to get me to go fight an unknown scientist over the internet or some such. I simply will not allow Qruel to bait me into an attack on another scientist as Qruel continues to cling to his viewpoint that "two scientists enter, one scientist leaves" while at the same time knowing that certainly neither of those two scientists are going to be him. I see no reason to change my moderation policy.
I understand about this becoming a personal issue, Dag. As I said, I will be civil as well as I'm able. I have attempted to be so repeatedly and throughout my time on Videosift, even on topics that are even more widely ridiculed and outright laughed at in the scientific community, topics that have no scientific backing of any kind (cell phone towers causing cancer, remote viewing, homeopathy, even perpetual motion machines). Let it be known, to date, I have been called closed-minded, arrogant, a prick, unreasonable, a bad scientist, and many other things in sifts, in profile messages, and in emails, and I have defended myself as I saw fit. I have never been the first to start off the arguments. But I'm putting my foot down now.
I have had enough of Qruel contributing nothing of worth to the Science channel and complaining about how I run the channel and spewing googled articles all over the place, while at the same time laying accusations about my abilities as an academic, as a scientist and as a person. I have laid my challenge to Qruel, and he has a chance to contribute something useful to the Science channel in a scientific manner for once. If not, well, I will no longer waste time on him and his sifts, and I will not feel the need to defend my position on such any further than pointing to this thread.
Qruel, you have 1 day and 15 hours.
Doc_MI'm not getting involved in this argument, but I would say that SciAm probably has a strong case against the copy/pasted website for copyright infringement. Without permission, posting this volume of excerpts from a subscription-only copyrighted publication with only two one-sentence contributions (which are just summaries) is a plain violation of copyright law, by my understanding.
Anyway, safe tip for posting articles to Sift Talk. Post a link to the article with any comments you have about it. If you need to quote a bit of the article, block-quote it and respond or comment on it. If it looks interesting, people will click to the article. No messy arguments.
qruel^Doc_M, Thanks for the tips on posting to SiftTalk. I will use them as a guideline next time I post.
If anyone has a problem with the fluoridealert site having a summary of the major talking points of the sciam article then that would best be taken up with fluoridealert and (or) sciam (i have no legal knowledge of the details of copyright, but was under the impression that commenting on an article was okay. whether this is legal or not is for someone else to decide).
Doc_MWasn't tryin to poke you qruel. Just sayin at least personally, I'm more interested in your comments on the article than the article text itself. I can read that from a link. Anyway, it'd avoid this sort of argument. As for the site, I only pointed out the copyright issue because they ought to know better.
qruel^Sorry, didn't mean to make it seem like I had been poked as I didn't take it that way from you. I figured I'd post the summary and then have a discussion below as we've done multiple times before. But seriously I appreciate your comment, as I'll be looking to avoid needless arguements about copyright and plagarism as I'd rather stick to the topic at hand.
Doc_M^That being said, I think it is safe to say that this is an argument that though it has been long in the making/stewing/festering, it is an argument that we can resolve easily with a simple agreement to focus on review of said "copy/pasted" articles instead of simple "copy/paste" of said articles.
We/I are/am not interested in a published article in sift talk. We are interested in your personal response to a published article. We can read the article on our own. If you want to post it to sift talk, simply review it and offer some unique perspective that you have to the article that we would otherwise not have and we will love it... or contest it as the case may be... and that's what we are about here.
This whole argument is about copy/pasting, not relevant science or relevant data. It is an entirely unnecessarily
qruelrembar you have constructed quite the strawman out of my arguements.go back to the thread we are talking about and you'll see that you ducked out of any real debate long before you got on your high horse. Our original disagreement has always been whether or not posts on the detrimental effects of fluoride should be posted in the science channel. You say "no" for a number of reasons (your comments below have reiterated this over and over.)
but perhaps you have a short memory, so here's the timeline.
rembar removes a video from the science channel before watching all of it.
"you're damn straight I didn't watch this documentary fully through. I only got about halfway through while eating my lunch before I knew I was going to remove it from the Science channel. Note how I didn't vote on the video - I will reserve doing that until or if I finish watching the video, as I typically do. My moderation of the Science channel sifts is separate from my voting."
you stated this about the scientist mentioned in the video
"I'm not disputing Dr. Mullinex's studies, methods, or results thereof. Yet. I haven't been able to dig up his(her) studies, so it would be unfair and intellectually dishonest of me to refer to them in any argument that I would make."
while you say you don't know anything about her studies, you know enough to totally discount her work. (She is a scientist and yet you won't let a video about her in the science channel). And apparently without knowing anything of her study you were able to comment...
"IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL."
you have now made a claim against the scientist and her work mentioned in the video (yet, you've never rebuted any of her work), without actually knowing anything about the scientist or her situation. Here is the lady who you are denigrating.
DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training... In the 1980s, Dr. Mullenix was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. She was invited to start Forsyth's Toxicology Department because of her expertise in neurotoxicology. She is presently a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Mullenix's academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.
when defending your action of removing it from the science channel, you quoted your own channel description
"In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."
Since the video was not parody you are implying that is was scientifically INACCURATE, but yet you provided no examples from the clip to back up that assertion. you also stated...
"Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL."
then you go in a different direction...
"I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals.".
this is bullshit as you've just admitted that you didn't kick the video out the content of the video itself. if we are discussing any details of scientific studies / works by accomplished and recognized scientists then the video should be in the science channel, not based on the outcome of me changing your already made up mind about the findings of such studies.
Your claim that I have not presented papers from scientific journals is demonstrably false as I've given you information from
FLUORIDE
Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research
and
A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
and while not a journal it is a review of the scientific studies that the EPA used to set their standards and which was reviewed by the NRC.
“Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (National Research Council, 2006)
then you got on your high, high horse by stating
Respond to the papers I have cited above and to my comments on them, and show their conclusions to be incorrect. I can't take you seriously until then.
I see, but I'm suppossed to take you seriously when you can't even present a cohesive arguement against the specific claims of the video. then you start with the insults... in response to cyberbeast saying that "The science (of fluoride) is controversial and not settled"
See, that's where they get you, and that's where you're wrong. Just like how all those creationist/intelligent design apologists say, "Oh, evolution is just a theory, there's still a lot of debate in the scientific community," and all the media latches onto that because they want a "balanced" story, not a fair one, and they can't comprehend a story wherein there is no scientifically accepted opposition as they believe it should be (i.e. support for creationism/intelligent design in the scientific community), there is overwhelming support for fluoride in water in the scientific community. Anybody who does work in medicine or public health could tell you that. That's why this video will not be put into the Science channel.
If you're already coming to tell me that "the science is controversial", this video has already done damage, because that is simply not true. I'm not going to lend any of the Science channel's legitimacy to this sift and make it that much worse.
and my three favorite end quotes from you highlighting the best of your character and ego...
"Oh, and yes, it is a pride issue: I take pride in holding the Science channel to a higher standard of scientific accuracy. The day that the Science channel goes the way of this sift is the day I bid adieu to VideoSift. Until then, I'm going to continue cleaning house in my channel and you can stop me when you pull the kick link from my cold, sifting fingers."
"Long story short, as long as people want to bawww about how I run my channel, I will laugh from my ivory tower and hold the Science channel to scientifically-acceptable standards with an iron fucking fist."
"I'm proud, I'm arrogant, and I'm also right. You have no scientific credentials nor any scientific reasoning nor critical thinking skills, which is why I don't take you seriously on this topic. I get paid for work on this, you don't. Guess how much I care about your opinion of me and my scientific thinking?"
_____________________
and you wonder why I won't engage your ego with a debate on the details of the scientific studies. That's not the issue at hand, your ever changing reasons to why you won't let any video about fluoride in your channel is. As your comments indicate, you have already made up your mind what you're going to believe, no matter what evidence is presented to you.
as a last aside. since I've been reading on this topic for the last few years, it's not googlefoo when one has already read the material and has it bookmarked for easy reference.
AbductedSure hope it's isn't that dangerous, I'm sitting here with a bottle of NaF (Sodium fluoride) [Edit: Sucky pills] that I got from the dentist. And there's plenty of it in the water to being with. "Should not be used in regions where the fluoride in the water is adequate." How do I know that?
I bet the Xylitol and Sorbitol mixed into these have some effect too.
Edit: A bottle of NaF would be cool, 5-10g can kill a person.. The possibilities would be endless!
winkler1Geez louise.. I'm interested in the topic but the "u r a plagerizer" drama is distracting. I found the post helpful, wherever it came from.. InternetADD and serious science controversies don't mix.
As someone who is going to the dentist after 10 years and has lots of little cavities, I'd love to know the truth on this. Should I use the flouridated mouthwash I just bought? Come on Mythbusters!
fissionchips>> ^winkler1:
... Should I use the flouridated mouthwash I just bought? Come on Mythbusters!
Yes! The purpose of flouride is to react with the surface of your teeth, which are made of Hydroxyapatite. Mouthwash is the best way to do this (toothpaste is second best). Ingesting flouride accomplishes nothing, except for causing the detrimental effects of flouridosis. As I assume qruel was getting at, you don't need conspiracy theories to argue against putting flouride in the water supply.
qruel^yup. fluoride's effectiveness is TOPICAL and not systemic, at least according to the CDC and a wealth of other researchers.
"[F]luoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical."
SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-42.
for references to other studies which state the same thing please visit this link.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html#refs
MycroftHomlz>> ^dag:
it's kind of condescending to be giving "assignments" to people with an opposing view...
So, Dag Doo, while I don't totally disagree with you. I see what rembar was trying to communicate. And to some extent, with all due respect, I see what he is frustrated with. Namely, qruel as likable as he is, has repeatedly fallen into the same intellectual misstep: dependence on unreliable sources and regurgitating others ideas.
Even though, out of the context of previous discussions, rembar's comment could be and may be disrespectful. Having myself discussed things with qruel, I sense rembar's frustration and empathize with his impatience.
Qruel, if you are are going to continue making electric comments, then from this point forward you should critically research them in bonafide peer reviewed journals. To do otherwise, ultimately hurts your argument and is not a useful employment of our time. And present thoughtful analysis of your own instead of ctrl+C/ctrl+V.
To reiterate, although the comment was, in my opinion, a touch derisive, it should be tempered with the knowledge of previous debates. But I agree with you, that we should be conscious of this, and avoid making personal attacks and diatribes from this point forward.
qruel^perhaps you missed the outline above where rembar stated that the information in the video was akin to creationism and intelligent design but yet he failed to provide any rebuttal. Which is why I included the scientists credentials. One would think that if he had such a problem with the assertions of the video that he would easily be able to "debunk" them.
instead he insists that any scientific studies that do not agree with his views (taken from government organizations and industry) {edit} are not scientifically worthy.
your comment implying that I did not use sources from peer reviewed journals on this topic is misleading and false, I've indicated above.
I agree with your last sentence about personal attacks and formally apologize for calling rembar a prick.
MycroftHomlzI think what I missed was that rembar is really frustrated with the fact that rather than reading something and presenting original thoughts or provoking analysis, you have consistently used ctrl+C and ctrl+V to form discussion.
I happen to agree with him. And I also happen to believe that you need to start researching things in bonafide peer-reviewed journals, which is true in the past. [In this debate, I have not verified your sources, but this has been consistently true.]
The fact that nearly every scientist that I know of on this site has reiterated these complaints to you, should be a hint that perhaps you should begin to seriously consider them. I hope you do. And, I hope you make an effort to change how you do things on this site.
We are trying to help you qruel. Help us, help you...
I couldn't resist that last bit.
MycroftHomlz.
qruel^lol. thanks for trying to help. I'm open to hearing rembars rebuttal of the article he mentioned that he wrote up. It's ashame that he had to go off on some wild plagarism conspiracy before posting it. But if it's like his other assertions then it might be what's left out of his comments that speak to his distorting of the issue.
Professional-Perspectives-Fluoride-in-Tap-Water
(use of copy & paste is okay for him to back up his point of view apparently)
But seriously, if you can start by explaining to me why the scientist (and her work) mentioned in this video The-Flouride-Deception is not considered to be credible enough to make it into the science sift. Perhaps had that been explained in the first place I'd be able to better understand your point.
as I've pointed out, rembar first stated he wasn't disputing her work, but then went to the other extreme by stating "IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL." (emphasis his) with no explaination at all as to why he went from one extreme to the other. But he did make some bold assertions that should have been explained. so in all honesty what am I to make of his response? they were just insults without explanation.
I guess it helps that I've read the authors book and understand more of the backstory of this scientist and a host of others like her. The author of the book uses original documents that he discovered through his research that showed collusion between industry scientist and government to "sell" the fluoridation program to the public. Along the way he interviewed lots of scientists who study fluoride, showing that there are many shades of grey to this issue. The efficacy and safety of fluoride use in our society is not black and white.
Topical = safe, effective (in proper doses and use)
Systemic = unsafe, noneffective (in doses over the minimum)
this is my first try at embedding a link so i might have to re-edit this post to get it correct
MycroftHomlzQruel. You have relied on less than credible sources in the past. I don't want to rehash every single debate that we have had, and I shouldn't have to. This is true. Unfortunately, I think again you have misunderstood what we are trying to communicate and changed the topic.
If we are going to continue discussing science, then we as members of the science community would appreciate if you would play by the rules:
Namely, use peer-reviewed published results from scientific papers, and use those papers to frame your own scientific opinions.
Please, read what I have written. This point transcends flouride, vaccines, 911, and every other topic we have covered. If you do not have access to the journals, then you need to go to your local library or university.
qruel^I also do not feel the need to rehash our prior conversations. As i understand it "The topic" has always been looking for a valid reason, justification that the video, The-Flouride-Deception, was left out of the science channel.
I have remanined constistent on that point from day one, while rembar (and now yourself) duck and dodge the issue. Just saying it is not science is akin to a parent saying "because" with no explanation. While it seems you and rembar would love to change the topic to anything else to avoid actually having an answer of substance. If you two are going to say that any negative findings from the science of fluoride research is NOT science only because it presents evidence contrary to your views then it won't really matter what research or findings i present to you because you'll disagree. I have to give you two credit, it's a great stance to take not to even acknowledge that the science you disagree with is science.
If the both of you want to disparage the scientist, DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D, then please present the evidence you've based your opinion on. Again when rembar associates her (or any) fluoride science with creationism DO YOU REALLY THINK HE IS OPEN TO ANY EVIDENCE scientifically reviewed or not? of course he isn't as he has already stated his extreme bias.
as far as your vaccine comment, my arguement was that vaccines are not 100% nor 100% effective. You and doc_m asked for scientific articles from peer reviewed journals that back up that claim, so I compiled and presented over 250 instances of such articles. I'll have to go back to read the thread, but it seemed like Doc_M agreed with that assertion. (edit) You'll remember we all agreed that people should not be jailed for choosing not to vaccinate.
qruel^these links might help to further illuminate my views of the nuances and "grey areas" on these issues. There are indeed two sides to this issue.
Voices of Opposition have been Suppressed since early days of Fluoridation
Suppression of Scientific Dissent on Fluoride's Risks and Benefits
The Politics of Fluoridation
MycroftHomlzLet's stay focused on the issue at hand.
Write:
I agree to "use peer-reviewed published results from scientific papers, and use those papers to frame my own scientific opinions" from now on.
And we will end this conversation.
qruelyes, let's stay focused on the issue at hand, which again is not what your addressing. Kicking a science video out of the science sift, even though it adhere's to that channels description. rembar denigrating an accomplished scientist work without providing evidence to back up his claims. You guys would be really great right wing talk show hosts.
I doubt rembar would agree with your "agreement", as it goes against all of his previous comments. but if he does, then sure, I could abide by that.
If I accept your "agreement" of using published results from scientific papers then shouldn't that topic be in a "science" sift ?
MycroftHomlzI am rational. Contrary to what many republicans, democrats, libertarians, and pinko commies think that does not indicate political affiliation.
If there was something else you were talking about, then that is a separate matter. And it can be deal with separately.
rembarQruel, one week ago, I gave you an offer to step up to a challenge. I asked you to develop an argument from an article that you felt comfortable about enough to justify copying and pasting someone else's summary into the Science channel's sift talk, and I agreed to respond in kind when you had done so. I did this partly because I wanted you to recognize that you have an intellectual responsibility for arguing and defending your own opinions through elaboration beyond citation of evidence, and partly because I was quite sure (and now am almost positive) that you are so full of shit as to post about an article that you have clearly never read. It was, as Choggie so eloquently put it, a call to scholarship. I gave my challenge seven days ago, with a deadline set for five days ago. After a full week has lapsed, you failed to rise to the occasion, and you failed to demonstrate an ounce of reason or intelligence.
I chose this thread and this moment to put my foot down because, for too long, you have been allowed to spew stupidity all over my channel. I have watched you and asked you before to stop doing so. You have consistently posted bad videos and comments. You have made attacks on my intellectual, academic, and scientific abilities. It disturbs me that you have not once stopped or even hesitated on your rollercoaster ride of loudly-proclaimed militant ignorance, to the point that I fear you have had or will have a detrimental effect on the Sift, and from the looks of this thread I am not alone in that fear.
Beyond even that, you have simply failed to realize that merely parroting the words of scientists by copying and pasting their work is unacceptable when forming a scientific argument. When I confront you on points in this research, you back behind these scientists and instead attempt to incite me to attack them rather than debate you. Not only is it rather insipid, it is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. The scientists, the educated men and women who have put forth research, work, thought into their careers and chosen areas of expertise, may make their opinions known, but you have no right to lay claim to their voices and their work, nor does anyone. If one is going to put forward an argument, one must stand behind that argument with one's own mind and only use others' voices and research to supplement those arguments. Should one fail to do these things, one should be branded as an intellectual coward and a fool, and this is perhaps the most fitting description of you I can imagine.
Qruel, I gave you a challenge, and not only did you fail to meet it, you responded with more blather and more personal attacks and more linking and more hiding behind scientists' work. Perhaps one day you will be able to prove you are worth a modicum of respect. Honestly, I expect that day will be closely followed by wailing of women and gnashing of teeth and the riding of the Four Horsemen, but I'll leave the possibility open. Until then, I am not going to bother putting you in your place verbally unless I'm so inclined. You are a coward and a moron, and I have no reason to waste my time dealing with your juvenile antics.
I will continue to throw all your stupid videos and Sift Talk posts down the well so that Science can be free, and I will not feel the need to justify doing so. Any good videos or sift talks you happen to post will be allowed to remain in the Science channel, although I doubt that will happen very often if at all. Any videos or sift talks you happen to pollute will also be put under review to be sent to the chokey.
These are the first of the changes I will be making to the moderation of the Science channel. You will be dealt with further as it is seen fit. Good day.
To everyone else:
Science is at war.
Over the course of the next few weeks or months, the Science channel will be undergoing changes in moderation, setup, and control. And we will be launching the largest change in this history of the Science channel.
Science - that word's importance should carry meaning to all of us today.
We can't be consumed by petty arguments with people who have no understanding or knowledge of science anymore.
We must be united in our common interest in science.
Perhaps it's fate that today is the 6th of February, the day that the first human egg was fertilized in test tube, and that today we will once again be striving for the good of Science, not for fertilization of a single ovum - but for the fertilization of Science as a whole.
We will be fighting for our right to think, to know, to understand the world around us.
And as we begin on this day, the 6th of February will no longer be known as just one more day of the year, but as the day when the Sift declared in one voice:
"We will not go quietly into the night!
We will not vanish without a fight!
We're going to live on!
We're going to survive!
We're going to evolve!"
Today, we celebrate our Science Day!
rembar*nochannel
rembar....dammit, Siftbot.
rembar*discard
siftbotDiscarding this post - discard requested by member rembar.
qruelI like your tactics, act like a know it all arrogant bully, who denigrates scientists and their work with no evidence or proof to support your claims and then cry a river when I or anyone else points out opposing research on the matter.
No matter how much you might know, I can't take you seriously, because your attitude is a joke.
As I've stated, I would be happy to discuss fluoride "scholarship" but it is too bad you are not serious or open to actually doing that, as you've indicated with your previous comments. Again what good would presenting and discussing scientific research on fluoride do with these types of comments from you...
"See, that's where they get you, and that's where you're wrong. Just like how all those creationist/intelligent design apologists say, "Oh, evolution is just a theory, there's still a lot of debate in the scientific community," and all the media latches onto that because they want a "balanced" story, not a fair one, and they can't comprehend a story wherein there is no scientifically accepted opposition as they believe it should be (i.e. support for creationism/intelligent design in the scientific community), there is overwhelming support for fluoride in water in the scientific community. Anybody who does work in medicine or public health could tell you that. That's why this video will not be put into the Science channel.
If you're already coming to tell me that "the science is controversial", this video has already done damage, because that is simply not true. I'm not going to lend any of the Science channel's legitimacy to this sift and make it that much worse."
hollow words from someone who can't produce evidence to back up his words on the video in question "The Fluoride Deception"
________________
and yet you try to claim that you are open minded enough to read published fluoride scholarship. Who do you think your kidding ?
I'm sure the scientists who are doing research on the detrimental health effects of fluoride would find your these comments from you to be equally hilarious and pathetically shortsighted
"We can't be consumed by petty arguments with people who have no understanding or knowledge of science anymore.
We must be united in our common interest in science."
rembar*yawn*
qruelkeep yawning. you ignore that which is obvious. science is influenced by other factors of which you choose to remain ignorant of. must be nice to never have to address my main issue since day one, but that would take an actual rebuttal instead of feigning all kinds of outrage.
bamdrewSo,... too much of a good thing can be bad. Well, I'll continue only brushing once a day. Good work, researchers! Carry-on!
As an aside, I have a friend who's a bit of a hippy, and hasn't bought fluoride toothpaste in many years;... 5 cavity average each time she goes to the dentist. No bullshit! Her record was 8, after not seeing the dentist for 12 months. Thats some expensive dental work right there. I havn't spent much time thinking about other possible sources (she's also a vegan... bit confounding there), but, I mean, I eat candy and cookies and shit like its going out of style, and hardly floss, and haven't had a cavity since I was like 13.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.