Just so much stupidity... It's amazing.

I love how the Anti-Fluoride people say "Don't believe the Pro-fluoride propaganda." Well at least the Pro-fluoride propaganda attempts to validate its claims more than "I heard it from "

So lets have a little Pro and Con article of the Pro and Con groups.

Pro-Fluoride


The current argument for it is "that it's naturally occurring, and there are extensive scientific studies to support its safety."

Which is true, it is a Naturally occurring Element [Look at the Periodic table under "F"] and there have been multiple studies that prove, in the current amounts it is safe.

The current amount of fluoride is at most 1.0mg/L. And here's lovely depiction
Quote:
Adding 1 Tablespoon of Fluoride to a 15 Litre bathtub, causes that water to have over 1000 times the amount of Fluoride in the water supply


And using lovely images from the Waikato DHB, showing children, in the same region, with the same level of dental care, but in a non-fluoridated area shows it does do something. And the fact it reduces fillings by over a half.

Anti-Fluoride


The current argument is "that it's a poison". Spoiler alert: Water is a Poison, Oxygen is a Poison, not to mention the sometimes radioactive poison they add to all the food [Periodic Table, under "I"] .

Not to mention the lethal dose is 10g for an Adult. That's the amount found in, 10,000 Litres of water using the maximum dosage. The lethal dose of Water, is 24 Litres a day. Which means if your kidneys were broken, you would have had to drink 24 Litres a day, for 416.7 days, ignoring the fact you would have died from Water Intoxication after the first 2 hours.

They also bring up the fact that Fluoride is not a Nutrient, that it's not used in any bodily process, and that Maori did not use it. Which is wrong on 2 points, Fluoride has been proven to be required in Bone growth, and enamel production, which is, ironically used as an argument, and since it's a naturally occurring item, in the Waikato River, Maori DID use it, they just didn't know. Not to mention, they didn't eat sugar, or KFC back then.

Another argument is that it can be found in Industrial waste, well, so can water, and salt. The fact is the fluoride used is created specially for this task, not recovered industrial waste, which somehow loses the other traces that can be found since they don't exist in creation.

They do bring up a Study that links Fluoride to lower IQ, this study is regarded as "not Clinically significant". But that's it.

Why is it "not Clinically significant"


The method is sound, the data not so much.

Out of the 34 papers they had found, 6 were removed due to lack of data, one was removed because their output was "questionably small" compared to the other 27 papers. 2 of the papers were from Iran, the other 25 were from China, 2 of which were directly studying the effects of Coal Power Plant Pollution. The fact that 2 of the papers, which were statistically similar to the rest, were directly showing the effect of air pollution could show that could be the actual cause of the difference, bad air already being linked to IQ losses. That paper that was removed was located in India, was dramatically more recent, and were studying children in schools. Whereas in China, they studying all children, and in the time period they were studied, only 30% of children were achieving at "Primary-level" after all of the schooling.

It presumes that the data was only related to fluoride, and doesn't look at what other causes could have caused it. And the difference is 0.46 points which is within the margin of error on the tests.

But it Violates the Laws of Medication


Since the chemical is completely naturally occurring, it's not classed as a Medicine. So it doesn't. Otherwise you would have to get consent for everything you add to food.