Science is Broken
     

Gary Novak

Home

Page List

Peer Review 
Junk Science
What Science is
Superficial Science


Prions
Relativity
Big Bang
Asteroid
Phenotypes
Intelligent Design
ATP
Heart
Cancer
Geology
Earth's Core
Tornadoes
Windmill Efficiency

                 

Fluoride in Drinking Water

Science Shows it Softens Bones and Teeth

 
Nature did a good job of evolving teeth and had half a billion years to do it. I'm an evolution biologist. I see the detail, complexity and adequacy of evolution. To think nature has flaws which humans can improve through crap like fluoride is biological stupidity.


The enamel is the hardest part of the tooth. If fluoride rots the enamel as fluorosis, what is it hardening?

Over the past fifty years, the US government has spent tens of millions of dollars trying several times to show through statistical study that fluoride improves teeth. Each time, they discontinue the study and start over, because the results never show improvement.

That's how statistical methods are used to promote fraud. When you don't get the results you want, you try again with modifications. Statistical methodology is designed to be quirky, so repeated efforts with modifications will eventually produced the desired results.

Gary Null, Ph.D.

At one time, fluoride therapy was recommended for building denser bones and preventing fractures associated with osteoporosis. Now several articles in peer-reviewed journals suggest that fluoride actually causes more harm than good, as it is associated with bone breakage.

A 1992 University of Arizona study yielded surprising results when they found that "the more fluoride a child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth."

The words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis: "The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."

Yiamouyiannis adds, "In highly naturally-fluoridated areas, the teeth actually crumble as a result. These are the first visible symptoms of fluoride poisoning."

--------------------

Darlene Sherrell

Children have died in the dentist's chair after treatment with topical fluoride. Adults have died during kidney dialysis when fluoride spills (in the water supply) occurred but were not reported.

In February of 1972 the ADA reported that in fluoridated cities, the dentists reaped a net profit 17% higher than in nonfluoridated cities.

---------------------

I'm an evolution biologist. The most absurd thing about fluoride is the assumption that nature got the evolution of teeth so screwed up that humans can improve upon the result by pouring something into the water. Nature evolves teeth (and all elements of biology) to optimize an extreme amount of complexity by adapting to conditions. In that process, a wide variety of teeth evolved under a wide variety of conditions including shark teeth for the oceans, mammal teeth for land and bird teeth for various things. To assume that a chemical can improve upon such unfathomable complexity is like assuming you can improve a television set by throwing a hammer at it.

Proponents admit that fluoride can cause tooth enamel to become brown and pitted. The enamel is the hardest part of the tooth. It protects the softer center. If the hardest part of the tooth is being destroyed, what is being improved? It's like rusting the metal off an auto to improve the auto.

One reason why promoters of fluoride cannot be told they are wrong is because they have a version of science that they go by. Supposedly, calcium phosphate is harder when it has fluoride with it. What does harder mean? Relative to what? Everything is harder than something.

Even if science could unravel the meaning of hardness over such infinite vagaries, there is no logic to the subject. Hardness has never been a question with teeth. No one is breaking teeth in a significant way. The problem with teeth is acidic decay. Does someone assume hardness is an indication of acidic decay? What this absurdity shows is the infantile assumptions that replace scientific rationality.

The tendency for acidic decay would have no relationship to hardness. The tendency for acids to dissolve teeth would be increased by fluoride due to the infinitely greater tendency of fluoride to dissolve in acids than calcium phosphate does. This would be why fluorosis occurs in pitting tooth enamel.

Secondly, the hardness of calcium phosphate with fluoride is tested on minerals which precipitated and crystalized in nature. Nothing resembling that process happens in biology. A similar quasi-biological error is promoted in claiming sea shells are softened by acid in the ocean, because the shells were formed by precipitation. There is no such thing as precipitation in biology.

Wikipedia defines precipitation as the creation of a solid from a solution. Biology does not create precipitating solutions. A lot of wasted space would be required; the resulting solid would be worthless; and no control of the result would be possible.

Instead, biology controls the formation of each molecule through enzymes. Molecules are constructed in biology with each component going exactly where it belongs. That process is not a precipitation creation. It is a controlled process which allows infinite complexity to be designed for optimizing results for special purposes.

A precipitate could be harder or softer for any number of reasons which are not relevant to biology. Often, fault lines form in precipitates which cause they to break at those points. Biology does not produce such fault lines.

Fluoride would cause teeth to dissolve more readily in acids for two major reasons: 1) Fluoride breaks the chain which links calcium and phosphate components together. To form a chain, there must be two attachments. Fluoride can only form one attachment. With the chain broken, acids can dissolve the structure more easily. 2) Fluoride is extremely soluble in water and acids. It's like table salt but even more soluble. How easy does table salt dissolve in water? Nothing in a kitchen dissolves more easily.

What this single point shows is the reduction of science to an infantile level in promoting fluoride for teeth. Promoters didn't just miss the science by a little ways. They set up the subject at an infantile standard of science.

And of course, as so many other critics have mentioned, there is no excuse for forcing something onto people for any reason. There is always a high diversity of reactions in society to food and other influences upon physiology. To create one-size-fits-all in health and nutrition cannot be viewed as honestly constructive.

Outside Links:
Fluoride Alert Web Site
New Report by NRC
Attempt to Stop it
Here's a typical fake article promoting fluoride
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoride

 

           
 
scbr
 
home