The main contention is that fluoridation of water leads to the immune system attacking the body's tissue inappropriately, which manifests itself problematically in both general immunosuppression and the destruction of some tissue that has difficulty regenerating (namely, nerve cells). It also is purported to disrupt normal bone structure, known alternately as "dental fluorosis" or "osteoporosis" (when such osteoporosis is not caused by a calcium deficiency).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SYgUi_f5yY <-- Here's a video about it.

Can anyone point to any specific health, social, criminal or other statistics for the Netherlands that are improved over countries that have water fluoridation?

Osteoporosis with pathological fracture by country:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_ost_wit_pat_fra-mortality-osteoporosis-with-pathological-fracture

per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_ost_wit_pat_fra_percap-osteoporosis-pathological-fracture-per-capita

(data sourced from World Health Organization)

Fluoridation by country:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country

There appears to be a correlation. Very high incidence of osteoporosis-caused fracture for the United States, where fluoridation happens all over the place, and very low for the Netherlands. It should be noted there are major problems in the reliability of these figures - they require that doctors will report the statistics in question to the World Health Organization.

Fluoridation isn't the primary factor for osteoporosis, anyway, as I said, but a contributing factor in high doses. I believe epidemiological data about dental fluorosis will be extremely unreliable (due to its general lack of acceptance as a medical disorder). Evidence supporting the incidence of fluoride-caused immunosuppression/neurotoxicity is even harder to document, as a result of the general nature of the presenting symptoms, and the difficulty of doctors in isolating their cause.

In light of this information, I suggest we move on, and look at the following studies that examined the effects of fluoridation WITHOUT relying on flimsy, population-wide epidemiological data:

http://www.manataka.org/page228.html

1) National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe

2) Harvard Study: Fluoridation associated with bone cancer in boys

3) Too much fluoride can damage the developing brain

4) Infant fluoride exposure linked to permanent tooth discoloration

5) Kidney patients at risk of chronic fluoride poisoning

6) Cornell scientist diagnoses fluoride poisoning in horses drinking fluoridated water

7) Fluoride exposure linked to kidney damage in children

8) Water fluoridation linked to higher blood lead levels in children from old homes

9) Dental fluorosis linked to tooth decay & psychological stress

10) Water fluoridation & the “Precautionary Principle”

Can anyone point to any specific health, social, criminal or other statistics for the Netherlands that are improved over countries that have water fluoridation?

As you noted, fluoridation isn't a primary factor for osteoporosis.

101_Force: your first hint that fluoridation is bad is that NotTheFather is supporting it. See:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/dwwac/why_am_i_getting_thinly_veiled_threats_from_the/

Long story...basically, whatever he says, believe the opposite. Usually.

So rather than try to answer 101_Force's question, you're going to do an ad hominem attack on me when I'm not even the focus of that post? Sloppy.

Recorded for posterity VV

ghibmmm [F] 0 points1 point2 points 30 seconds ago[-] (1|0)

101_Force: your first hint that fluoridation is bad is that NotTheFather is supporting it. See:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/dwwac/why_am_i_getting_thinly_veiled_threats_from_the/

Long story...

Do everyone a favor and leave. You're clearly not going to contribute anything to the conversation.

I don't know about that. You're quite eager to slander me while I haven't said a world about you. And that slander is a beaten dead horse.

I appreciate your counterpoints.

Thank you. This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

So they've stopped claiming that fluoride does any good and now claim it doesn't do any harm?

Well uh... I grew up on fluoridated water and all I have to thank for it are zero cavities and zero broken bones. Did I conspiracy wrong?

JUST A LITTLE BIT!

but its okay.

wait no its not okay!

That's ridiculous. Why should a benefit have to be proved to STOP doing something that is likely harmful? Shouldn't the proponents of fluoridation prove that it's helpful and useful to fluoridate water?

BTW, they're not even using pharmaceutical grade fluoride. Nope. Industrial waste is what we're getting. There's also a statistic that Americans are shorter than Europeans -- fluoride could be a culprit.

Here's 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation -- including cancers, etc.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

First of all, it's not ridiculous to ask for information that is contrary to everything I was taught growing up, and your insistence that it is ridiculous dissuades me from wanting to even consider the information you're presenting. You just come across as snarky.

Second of all, there are reports indicating water flouridation carries certain dental benefits (reference 1, reference 2, reference 3). I am not suggesting these benefits outweigh the harmful effects, in fact it is my attempt to explore both views of this issue that has led me to post this question to r/Conspiracy, but responses from users like you sure is making it hard for me to seriously consider the points raised here. The point I am making in this paragraph is that proponents of fluoridation have provided research suggesting there may be some benefits to water fluoridation.

Third of all, you don't seem to have a proper understanding of "pharmaceutical grade fluoride" or its context in water fluoridation. Fluorosilicic acid (also known as hexafluorosilicic acid) is a by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing (reference), but all the research I've looked at so far linking flouridation to osteoporosis studied the effects of sodium fluoride overdose (reference), although I have a number of other studies to look in to further. For the record sodium fluoride is what would be referred to as "dental grade flouride", although sometimes stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate are used in dental applications as well. Fluorosilicic acid is sometimes used for water fluoridation, but some countries/provinces/states use sodium fluorosilicate (also known as fluorospar) as an additive instead, and while it can be created from fluorosilicic acid it can also be mined (reference 1, reference 2). It's also worth noting all sources of natural water contain varying levels of sodium fluoride or hydrogen fluoride -- usually at quantities proportionally higher to sources of water at greater depths in the Earth (reference).

The purpose of this message is not to suggest water fluoridation's benefits outweigh the negative effects, as this is essentially the question I am currently researching, but you have not presented a clear or apparently accurate argument.

Didn't they legalize or decriminalize drug use? If so, that seems to show they have more common sense than most...

From what I've heard Amsterdam has been systematically closing smoking shops since 2008 (reference 1, reference 2), although they don't plan on closing all of them. Import and export of illegal or decriminalized drugs still carries a high penalty as well. Apparently magic mushrooms are outright banned (reference), and it seems as though it's about as easy to find heroin, cocaine or ecstasy in Amsterdam as it is in any North American city (reference), although it should be noted the penalty for using or buying ecstasy appears to be just a minor fine. The societal view of these drugs seems pretty much exactly the same as views held by West Coast Canadians (an area with a fair bit of water fluoridation), and possibly the rest of Canada. The legal views are not all that different either -- with the exception of the Canadian city of Vancouver's only smoking shop being shut down during the early 2000's (although note there's a lot of support for its comeback).

It doesn't appear there's any correlation between water flouridation and legal or societal views of illegal or psychoactive drugs.

EDIT: Why the downvote? I've provided plenty of evidence and reason to believe there is no correlation between water flouridation and legal or societal views of illegal or psychoactive drugs.

Treating teeth by putting fluoride in drinking water is like painting a car by dipping it in a swimming pool full of paint. Fluoride should be applied topically to the teeth, the way it is most effective, and not to the digestive system, where it's a toxin and only has small dental benefits.

I know this doesn't answer your question but I dont think it's a conspiracy that fluoride is put in water, just incredible incompetence. I am nonetheless curious in the answer to the question you asked.

I dont think it's a conspiracy that fluoride is put in water, just incredible incompetence

My research is starting to lead me to the same conclusion. Some of the conspiracy claims do seem to be outright misinformation, but there are some claims with enough credibility to raise concern. Looking at the research in to the benefits I can only come to same conclusion I come to regarding the conspiracy claims: adequate research hasn't really been conducted.

[deleted]

As of 2010 USA is at 4th place and the Netherlands are at 7th place, with Canada right behind it at 8th place (reference). I don't think just going by the UN Human Development Index is enough in this case to draw any correlation between societal or health improvements and water fluoridation or lack of water fluoridation.

Chlorine is added to drinking water to kill micro-organisms and prevent the spread of water-born diseases. The only difference between humans and micro-organisms is that we are larger in mass and it takes a much higher concentration of chlorine to kill us. Chlorine is acidic, and is a very corrosive chemical. When you walk out of the swimming pool, your skin is very dry and itchy, and your hair feels brittle and rigid. If this is what it does to your body on the outside, you can imagine what it can do inside your body when you ingest it with tap water! The smell of chlorine and the dangers of water chlorination are leaving people with no choice but to filter their water before use. The Canadian government, US government, and many third party research groups have found a link between Chlorine and cancer

“A new statistical analysis indicates that people who drink chlorinated water run a 21 percent greater risk of bladder cancer and a 38 percent greater risk of rectal cancer than people who drink water with little or no chlorine.” “I am quite convinced, based on this study, that there is an association between cancer and chlorinated water.” SCIENCE NEWS- 11 July 1992 “Studies indicate the suspect chemicals can also be inhaled and absorbed through the skin during showering and bathing. Ironically, even the chlorine widely used to disinfect water produces carcinogenic traces. Though 7 out of 10 Americans drink chlorinated water, its safety over the long term is uncertain. Drinking chlorinated water may as much as double the risk of the Bladder Cancer, which strikes 40,000 people a year.” U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT July 29 1991 Chloroform and several other CBPs (chlorination disinfection by-products) are known to cause cancer in experimental animals, and there is growing epidemiologic evidence of a causal role for CBPs in human cancer, particularly for bladder cancer

For more info on using safe water please http://www.gtawater.com/

Fluoride from fluoridated water accumulates not only in the enamel of teeth but also in the skeleton. The effects of fluoridated water on the skeleton are not well understood, yet there is some evidence that fluoridated water consumption increases the incidence of fractures. In the present study, femoral bending strength was measured in rats on fluoride intakes that ranged from low levels to levels well above natural high fluoride drinking water. Bone strength followed a biphasic relationship with bone fluoride content. Fluoride had a positive effect on bone strength for lower fluoride intakes and a negative influence on bone strength for higher fluoride intakes. The vertebral fluoride content at which femoral strength was maximum was between 1,100 and 1,500 ppm. The increase in femoral strength at this fluoride level was not accompanied by an increase in femoral bone density. The optimal fluoride content is within the range of bone fluoride contents found in persons living in regions with fluoridated water (1 ppm) for > 10 years.

For more info on using safe water please http://www.gtawater.com/

Something like this?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1985.tb00434.x/abstract

The aim of this study was to examine longitudinally the effect of water fluoridation on the prevalence of enamel lesions in children 7–18 yr of age. 93 children in Tiel (1 ppm F-) and 103 children in Culemborg (0.1 ppm F-) were examined every other year at 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 yr of age. A supplementary examination was carried out when these children reached the age of 18. Children in Tiel had access to water fluoridation from birth. The total number of lesions, including enamel lesions, on the buccal as well as on the occlusal surfaces was approximately the same in both areas in children 15 and 18 yr of age. Approximal lesions were scored on standardized bitewing radiographs. A large proportion of enamel lesions could not be detected on radiographs. In a fluoridated area a high percentage of all lesions remain in the stage of enamel caries lesions. On buccal surfaces 93% and on approximal surfaces 86% of all lesions had not progressed into the dentin. In Culemborg these percentages were 65 for approximal as well as for buccal surfaces. At the initiation of lesions, at younger ages, only a small retardation of the process was observed, but caries progression beyond the stage of enamel caries was markedly reduced in the fluoridated area. No pre-eruptive effect could be observed if the total number of lesions, including enamel lesions, from Tiel and Culemborg were compared.

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&amp;collection=ENV&amp;recid=7402229&amp;q=Netherlands+fluoridation&amp;uid=790045498&amp;setcookie=yes

WERE SELECTED AFTER SOCIOLOGICAL SCREENING. TIEL WAS FLUORIDATED UP TO 1.1 MG/L IN MARCH 1953, AND COMPARED TO CULEMBORG WITH A FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 PPM IN ITS DRINKING WATER. IN THIS EXPERIMENT, CARIES WERE DIAGNOSED IN DIFFERENT SITES. THIS METHOD PERMITTED A BETTER INSIGHT INTO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAVITIES IN A DENTITION. IT ALSO SHOWED THAT FLUORIDATION DID NOT HAVE THE SAME EFFECT ON ALL TOOTH SURFACES. CARIES OF THE PROXIMAL SURFACES WAS DIAGNOSED WITH THE AID OF X-RAYS, WHEREAS ALL OTHER SITES WERE EVALUATED CLINICALLY. THE MAIN STUDY GROUPS, CONSISTING OF CHILDREN 11-15 YR-OLD, WERE EXAMINED EVERY SECOND YEAR. EACH AGE CLASS IN THESE GROUPS CONSISTED OF ABOUT 70 BOYS AND 70 GIRLS. ALL THESE CHILDREN WERE BORN AND HAD RESIDED EITHER IN TIEL OR IN CULEMBORG ALL THEIR LIVES. DURING THE COURSE OF THESE 16 YRS, THE CARIES FREQUENCY IN CULEMBORG INCREASED WHEREAS IT DECREASED IN TIEL. (SEE ALSO W74-02230)--COPYRIGHT 1973, BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS, INC.

Edit - Need coffee, misread the question. My two studies suggest fluoridation > non-fluoridation which is the opposite of what OP wanted.

From the first study (at least, what I could piece out of the abstract):

Children in Tiel had access to water fluoridation from birth. The total number of lesions, including enamel lesions, on the buccal as well as on the occlusal surfaces was approximately the same in both areas in children 15 and 18 yr of age.

Your second study only deals with the question of "dental decay' as diagnosed by prevalence of cavities. However, cavities are generally caused by the destruction of enamel and dentite by an extended bacterial growth, as in the case of food becoming trapped in the mouth (why we use toothbrushes and floss). Furthermore, the sample sizes are razor small. Furthermore, fluoride content of toothpastes is closer to 0.1% (1000 ppm), while the water fluoridation in both of these samples is only 0.1 and 1 ppm, (and 0.1 ppm and 1.1mg/L in the other study) and no information is given as to the use of fluoridated toothpaste, which means that both of these studies are basically just useless, because easily diagnosed (i.e., visible) dental fluorosis is only purported to happen as a result of the use of fluoridated toothpaste, and X-rays tell us almost nothing about problems in skeletal structure, or, for that matter, tissue inflammation.

Futhermore, the studies I linked in my other comment contradict the theory that fluoridation increases dental health in any way:

http://www.manataka.org/page228.html

Notably this one:

For years, Cathy Justus’ horses in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, were experiencing symptoms that, no matter what medical treatment she tried, would not go away. The symptoms included colic (i.e. gastrointestinal pain), arthritis-like stiffness of the bones, and skin allergies. Cathy brought her horses to multiple veterinarians in the area, but none were able to find a cure for the horses’ problems -- that is, until she met Dr. Lennart Krook, a retired veterinary researcher from Cornell University. Upon examining the horses, Dr Krook quickly discovered that Cathy’s horses had dental fluorosis – a fluoride-induced condition that created large brown stains and pits on the horses’ teeth. (None of the previous veterinarians Cathy went to had ever bothered to examine the horses’ teeth, and had therefore missed this important warning sign.)

Following the discovery of dental fluorosis, Dr. Krook conducted microscopic analyses of some of the deceased horses’ bones, and found changes in the bone structure that were consistent with skeletal fluorosis. While the horses’ bone fluoride levels (between 600 and 900 ppm) were well below the levels typically associated with skeletal fluorosis (in cattle), Dr. Krook concluded that the horses were, in fact, suffering from “chronic fluoride intoxication.”

Although some have questioned Dr. Krook’s diagnosis (based on the low fluoride levels in the horses’ bones), the owner of the horses swears by it. After her town council voted (in March 2005) to end its water fluoridation program, the symptoms that had plagued Cathy’s horses for nearly 20 years, began to subside – and have not returned since. Coincidence? According to Cathy Justus, the proof is in the pudding.

Furthermore, I note that the discolorations and stains that was present in my own teeth for nearly a decade where I used fluoridated toothpaste and water disappeared within several months after cessation. My teeth are now normal, i.e., colored like bone. By my estimate, my intake of calcium has not appreciably changed during that period.

Do everyone a favor and leave. You're clearly not going to contribute anything to the conversation.