Thursday, April 24, 2014
YOLO COUNTY NEWS
99 CENTS

Fluoridation vs. global warming

The same people who cannot understand how in the world those who do not believe human activities are strong contributors to global climate change in light of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence saying this is so are many of the same people who do not support fluoridating our water even though the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the position that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health advancements in our lifetimes.
I don’t get it.
Clyde W. Froehlich
Davis

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 14 comments

The Davis Enterprise does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

  • John TroidlNovember 11, 2013 - 10:55 am

    Don't forget, Mr. Froehlich, that when considering human behavior.... "it does not HAVE to make sense"... although it is so much better for all of us if it does!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • nyscofNovember 12, 2013 - 3:13 am

    Froehlich's assumption is wrong. He never looked for it. So he doesn't know that the science that launched fluoridation is either wrong or scientifically invalid as pointed out in many reviews of the literature. In the early 1900's researchers theorized that ingesting fluoride as an essential nutrient was required to reduce tooth decay. So they added artificial fluoride chemicals in water supplies Science proved all those theories wrong. Fluoride is not essential. It is not a nutrient and ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay but does cause adverse health effects which have been published in respected, peer reviewed journals. http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health If Froehlich is so science savvy, he needs to look at the literature - not the endorsements or phrases handed out in press releases by gov't agencies which are usually the last ones to take note of new science.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • nyscofNovember 12, 2013 - 3:57 am

    Studies of Fluoride Supplements: No Evidence of Safety - No Benefit Either & Never FDA approved. According to the Cochrane Oral Health Group, fluoride supplements fail to reduce tooth decay in primary teeth, permanent teeth cavity- reduction is dubious and health risks are little studied (1). Further, "When fluoride supplements were compared with topical fluorides or with other preventive measures, there was no differential effect on permanent or deciduous teeth," write Cochrane researchers Ismail et al The Cochrane research team reports, "We rated 10 trials as being at unclear risk of bias and one at high risk of bias, and therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements." The team "found limited information on the adverse effects associated with the use of fluoride supplements." In the early 1980's, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation research first revealed fluoride tablets and mouth rinses failed to reduce tooth decay.(2)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • John TroidlNovember 12, 2013 - 5:16 am

    Don't you just love this "stuff"? I wish my education were more complete and that I had taken rhetoric in college... then I would know the name of the malodorous false argument that "nyscof" put in front of us. Can anybody help me with that? (Informally it is called "blarney" or perhaps "bs" but I am sure that there is a formal name for when somebody throws a diversion up in the air in order to convince/deceive the audience.....). Anyway, let's clarify the "Never FDA approved" assertion of "nyscof". The following is from the California Department of Public Health web site: "Are fluorides approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Not Required. The FDA is just one of several regulatory agencies that ensure public safety. The FDA's authority is limited to products sold to the public and fluoride has been approved for use in toothpastes, mouth rinses and even bottled water. The FDA has no role in approving drinking water additives pursuant to their agreement with the EPA in the early 1980's. Additives are covered by state regulation's. It should be noted that the FDA does not have the authority to approve many of the products we use every day. For more information on what the FDA does, and does not regulate, visit: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_quiz.html. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 confers the authority for ensuring the safety of public drinking water to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is responsible for setting drinking water standards and has the authority to regulate the addition of fluoride to the public drinking water." Yeah, there you have it. BTW, do you know what "nyscof" stands for? I mean besides "Kooks"? Look it up, because it is NOT a Davis resident.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Grant AcostaNovember 12, 2013 - 7:39 am

    I'll repeat my request for an explanation, for which I have gotten no response from in previous attempts: If fluoridation is effective at reducing tooth decay, you would expect Davis, a non-fluoridating city, to have higher rates of dental caries that cities that do fluoridate, but the data doesn't seem to back this up. Everyone keeps telling us to listen to the science, but good science doesn't ignore data that contradicts your theory. Explanation...?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • John TroidlNovember 12, 2013 - 7:48 am

    "Good science" requires, among other things,..... good data and familiarity with the concept of "ceteris parabus". Hope that helps.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • November 12, 2013 - 7:58 am

    Nice job avoiding Grant's question! You should be a politician.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • John TroidlNovember 12, 2013 - 9:14 am

    Dear Anonymous (wimpy): I did not want to insult Grant's intelligence, merely be helpful in response to what sounded like a sincere question. Capiche?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • GrantNovember 12, 2013 - 11:22 am

    John, please insult my intelligence and explain your case. Are you saying Alan Pryor's numbers are wrong, and that Davis has higher rates of dental disease than communities that fluoridate? If so, has anyone else even studied the matter in Davis? The common response of a dentist saying they see lots of dental problems is like a trash collector saying they see a lot of trash. If no one can put a number to the rate of dental disease in Davis, why would you propose medicating a city when a problem has not been identified?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • John TroidlNovember 12, 2013 - 12:31 pm

    Grant: "ceteris parabus" means "all things being equal". If you are going to compare Davis to other cities you have to control for variables that vary between the comparison groups.... like dental insurance coverage possessed by residents in each community, for example. And as for your question... "has anyone... even studied the matter in Davis?" to my knowledge nobody has done an in-depth, professional quality, community wide study of oral health status; community resources and deficits; and a comparative assessment of opportunities for improvement. Indeed, we conducted the entire discussion without baseline information. I think we can do better than that. It is called a "Needs Assessment/Feasibility Study".... which is a prudent "look before you leap" approach.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • GrantNovember 12, 2013 - 2:49 pm

    John- I know what ceteris paribus means, and that was exactly my point. It would be difficult to study the effectiveness of water fluoridation with "all things being equal." There are too many factors that affect dental disease (nutrition, dental hygiene, etc.), so when the pro-fluoridation side argues that science is on their side, that's not entirely true.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • GrantNovember 12, 2013 - 12:21 pm

    John - I agree with your ceteris paribus argument. You can't compare Davis with most communities because most folks here brush their teeth often and use fluoridated mouth rinse. That's exactly why you should be careful in applying common public health practices in this city. Look, it boils down to this. Before you medicate an entire city with additional fluoride, sound science would say you need to identify a problem in quantitative terms. Its the reason local public health officials do not recommend everyone in Davis get a malaria shot/pill. Your chances of getting malaria in Davis are very slim. If you do not agree with Mr. Pryor's data regarding low rates of dental disease in Davis, then the pro-fluoride group should provide their own data. However, all I ever hear quoted is some public health agency stating that water fluoridation is beneficial, but no recent data to back it up. You would think an abnormally low dental disease rate in a city like Davis would intrigue scientists, not cause them to quickly dismiss this result as an outlier (BTW, while you may argue that a low rate in ONE city does not prove fluoridation is ineffective, I would argue this ONE city is comprised of 60,000 plus people, hardly an isolated study). Could it be that the more effective approach to preventing dental disease is regular brushing? With all of the factors that affect our dental health, how can we be sure that water fluoridation is the cause of dental health improvement? Ceteris paribus...?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • November 12, 2013 - 9:10 am

    Convoluted (and run on) sentence, Mr. Froehlich. However, the "overwhelming body of scientific evidence" stands in contrast to some troubling facts. For example, during the massive Industrial Revolution, temperatures fell. Ice has returned to record levels in the Artic, and with increased thickness. Bloomberg News recently had an article about the "Mystery of the 'Missing' Global Warming" (Oct 23, 2013). (Apparently, there has been a 14-year 'pause' or 'hiatus' in Global Warming which has caused the IPCC fits!) Did you know that after this record-cold winter in the Artic, some scientists are predicting that we are entering a Global Cooling phase? OK, OK, this thing has more holes in it than the former Ozone Hole scare ... or Al Gore's ethics. But I do recall that an academic community is supposed to be open to debate and disagreement. Right? This so-called settled science allows the do-gooders to control our energy policies, consumption, and more. But for the sake of being civil, I'll agree with you... as long as you allow the building of no CO2 producing - 1,000-needed nuclear power plants - which the IPCC recommends.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Alan MillerNovember 12, 2013 - 9:51 am

    I understand that a recent scientific study concludes that fluoridation prevents run-on sentences with a triple negative. I further understand that fluoridating the water actually prevents the posting to the comments section of local newspapers claims of definitive scientific evidence proving one side, and discounting the other side completely. Let's floor a date!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

Food insecurity remains an issue for many county residents

By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A1

 
4-H members prepare for Spring Show

By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A1

 
 
Youth sports in focus on radio program

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

 
Rummage sale will benefit preschool

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

Concert benefits South Korea exchange

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

 
Conference puts focus on Arab studies

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

Central Park Gardens to host Volunteer Orientation Day

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5 | Gallery

 
Volkssporting Club plans North Davis walks

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5

Hotel/conference center info meeting set

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5

 
Davis honors ‘green’ citizens

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5

Water rate assistance bill advances

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5

 
Program explores STEM careers for girls

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5

Embroiderers plan a hands-on project

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5

 
Cycle de Mayo benefits Center for Families

By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A8

Author to read ‘The Cat Who Chose to Dream’

By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A12

 
.

Forum

Ortiz is the right choice for Yolo

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

 
Tom Meyer cartoon

By Debbie Davis | From Page: A6

The high cost of employment

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

 
High-five to Union Bank

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

Broken sprinklers waste water

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

 
Three more administrators?

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

Neustadt has experience for the job

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

 
Here’s a plan to save big on employee costs

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A6

Davis is fair, thoughtful

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

 
.

Sports

DHS/Franklin II is a close loss for Devil softballers

By Enterprise staff | From Page: B1

 
DHS tracksters sweep another DVC meet

By Enterprise staff | From Page: B1 | Gallery

Another DVC blowout for DHS girls soccer

By Evan Ream | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
Young reinvents his game to help Aggies improve on the diamond

By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B1 | Gallery

DHS boys shuffle the deck to beat Cards

By Thomas Oide | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
Baseball roundup: Giants slam Rockies in the 11th

By The Associated Press | From Page: B2

 
UCD roundup: Aggies lose a softball game at Pacific

By Enterprise staff | From Page: B3

Jahn jumps to Sacramento Republic FC

By Evan Ream | From Page: B8

 
.

Features

.

Arts

Emerson, Da Vinci to present ‘Once Upon a Mattress’

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

 
Winters Plein Air Festival begins Friday

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

 
Bach Soloists wrap up season on April 28

By Jeff Hudson | From Page: A11

 
Congressional art competition open to high school students

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

 
.

Business

.

Obituaries

.

Comics

Comics: Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Creator | From Page: B6