The introduction of fluoride to Cairns water supplies seems to be riling some of the whackaloons, with various authors writing to the editor of the Cairns Post to vent.

One thing almost all seem to forget is that many substances are beneficial in small amounts but dangerous in larger amounts. Others have no effect in small amounts at all. The idea of dose response seems beyond them. It’s entirely possible to overdose and be harmed by salt, water, iron or even Vitamin C.

It’s also odd that they don’t rail against chlorination of our water supply.  Look at the effects of chlorinated water on aquarium fish to see how nasty chlorine or chloramine can be. I sent an email to Cairns water a long time ago asking if they used chloramine, but never received an answer. Chloramine is not removed by leaving water to “age”.

We’ve also seen anecdotal evidence (pretty much an oxymoron) being cited. The experience of one person’s cousin in Perth doesn’t provide us with enough information to draw a conclusion. Anecdotal evidence seems popular with many authors, and not just those of the anti-fluoridation lobby. We saw a similar argument from an anti-genetically modification correspondent recently in which he cited the effects of a relative in England fertilising his/her garden with manure from a horse fed on GM feed. No thought

I’ve also seen arguments listing a number of European countries that are claimed to have ceased fluoridation. This is an argument based on popularity rather than evidence. A popular opinion can be wrong. Why did these countries remove fluoride? Was it simply because the anti-fluoride lobby were vocal? Politicians regularly base their decisions on what will get them re-elected rather than on evidence.

Paranoia also seems to play a part, with some authors apparently thinking that the Australian Medical Association (AMA), Australian Dental Association (ADA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) are in cahoots with industry in an attempt to harm us. It’s a little scary to think otherwise sensible people can be that paranoid. The AMA, ADA, WHO et al may be wrong (it’s possible but unlikely on this issue), but there’s no reason to think they are malevolent.

Then there’s the argument from authority, in which some individual with a PhD is quoted as being opposed to fluoridation.  One should note that there is no claim so stupid that one cannot find a PhD to endorse it. There are people with PhDs that endorse homeopathy, Creationism, astrology, and just about any other piece of nonsense you can name.

If you are going to try the argument from authority, it’s much better to go for large, respected organisations like the AMA, ADA and WHO – yet these are the organisations the whackaloons claim are in on the con. The argument from authority is, of course, not a good argument. The argument from authority is an attempted short cut in reasoning, allowing one to arrive at a position without having to think about it too much. One needs to pick one’s authorities carefully, if at all.

The evidence strongly suggests that fluoridation is an effective public health measure, protecting both children and adults against cavities. The use of misinformation by a small but vocal minority should not be allowed to prevent implementation of sound public health policy.

It’s about time all Queenslanders had fluoridated water. The Bligh government should be congratulated on its resolve in moving forward with it.

—–

The ADA has a good FAQ on fluoridation.