There are two statements that show up, embedded like viral code in software, in the government and dental trade statements that have been recently rewritten so as to appear favourable (i.e. pretending) to the idea of reconsidering whether fluoride from water is really "needed" any more, seeing as how the world we live in now provides plenty of it from a variety of sources (some that we will fail to mention) and the 2006 NRC report casts doubt (to put it mildly) as to the safety of high intakes. And maybe (but not maybe enough to make us stop adding industrial waste to water) the benefits don't outweigh the risks at these high exposures (but we will continue to make sure that you get high exposures anyway).

 

I am just fed up with these mistakes (which I believe are deliberate):

1.  topical benefits of fluoride include drinking fluoridated water (a logical and scientific impossibility)

2.  there is an exposure-benefit relationship that can be assumed to trump human rights and precautionary principles.

The fact that Schettler, a decent and thoughtful environmental health champion and defender of children's rights to a nontoxic planet, fell for them makes me really, really sad.

 

Aliss