(Newsweek)If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.
Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.
Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”
You might think, then, that fluoridated water’s efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact.
The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.
The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975.
The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either.
The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).
“From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.)
“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.”
“There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.” One 2001 study covered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable.
Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely to increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants.
“The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.
The scientists also couldn’t find enough evidence to support the oft-repeated notion that fluoridation reduces dental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, which the CDC and others use as a rationale for fluoridating water.
“The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Till and Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University.
Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. So while it may have once made sense to add fluoride to water, it no longer appears to be necessary or useful, Thiessen says.
It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says.
Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits.
Across all nine studies included in the review looking at caries reductions in children’s permanent choppers, there was evidence linking fluoridation to 26 percent decline in the prevalence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. But the researchers say they have serious doubts about the validity of this number. They write: “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.” Six of the nine studies were from before 1975, before fluoride toothpaste was widely available.
The review also found fluoridation was associated with a 14 percent increase in the number of children without any cavities. But more than two-thirds percent of the studies showing this took place more than 40 years ago, and are not of high quality.
Nearly all these papers were flawed in significant ways. For example, 70 percent of the cavity-reducing studies made no effort to control for important confounding factors such as dietary sources of fluoride other than tap water, diet in general (like how much sugar they consumed) or ethnicity.
When it comes to fluoridation research, even the best studies are not high quality. Although this was already well-established, it doesn’t seem to be well-known.
“I couldn’t believe the low quality of the research” on fluoridation, Sheldon says.
The data suggest that toothpaste, besides other preventative measures like dental sealants, flossing and avoiding sugar, are the real drivers in the decline of tooth decay in the past few decades, Thiessen says. Indeed, cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.
Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation. KK CHENG ET AL / BMJ
Meanwhile, dental health leaves much to be desired in widely fluoridated America: About 60 percent of American teenagers have had cavities, and 15 percent have untreated tooth decay.
One thing the review definitively concluded: Fluoridation causes fluorosis.
This condition occurs when fluoride interferes with the cells that produce enamel, creating white flecks on the teeth. On average, about 12 percent of people in fluoridated areas have fluorosis bad enough that it qualifies as an “aesthetic concern,” according to the review. According to Sheldon, that’s a “huge number.” A total of 40 percent of people in fluoridated areas have some level of fluorosis, though the majority of these cases are likely unnoticeable to the average person.
In a smaller percentage of cases, fluorosis can be severe enough to cause structural damage, brown stains and mottling to the tooth.
Sheldon says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today, “nobody would even think about it” due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.
There is also a definite issue of inequality when it comes to fluorosis. Blacks and Mexican-Americans have higher rates of both moderate and severe forms of the condition. Blacks also have higher levels. As of 2004, 58 percent of African-Americans had fluorosis, compared to 36 percent of whites, and the condition is becoming more common.
The Cochrane review concerned itself only with oral health. It didn’t address other health problems associated with fluoride, which Grandjean says need to be researched.
Many of the Cochrane study’s conclusions conflict with statements by the CDC, the American Dental Association and others that maintain fluoridation is safe and effective. The ADA, for example, maintains on its website that “thousands of studies” support fluoridation’s effectiveness—which is directly contradicted by the Cochrane findings. The ADA didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The CDC remains undeterred. “Nothing in the Cochrane review” reduces the government’s “confidence in water fluoridation as a valuable tool to prevent tooth decay in children as well as adults,” says Barbara Gooch, a dental researcher with CDC’s Division of Oral Health.
The CDC and others “are somehow suspending disbelief,” Sheldon says. They are “all in the mindset that this is a really good thing, and just not accepting that they might be wrong.” Sheldon and others suggest pro-fluoridation beliefs are entrenched and will not easily change, despite the poor data quality and lack of evidence from the past 40 years.
Derek Richards, the editor of the journal Evidence-Based Dentistry (published by the prestigious Nature group) concedes that “we haven’t got any current evidence” that fluoridation reduces cavities, “so we don’t know how much it’s reducing tooth decay at the moment,” he says. “But I have no qualms about that.” Richards reasons that because fluoridation may help reduce cavities in those who don’t use toothpaste or take other preventative measures, including many in lower socioeconomic groups, it’s likely still useful. He also argues that there’s no conclusive evidence of harm from fluoridation (other than fluorosis), so he doesn’t see a large downside.
But most scientists interviewed for this article don’t necessarily think fluoridation’s uncertain benefits justify its continuation without more stringent evidence, and argue for more research into the matter.
“When you have a public health intervention that’s applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose,” Sheldon says. Everybody
(NYtimes.com) Most curators hope to get glowing reviews and popular acclaim when they mount an exhibit. Michael Kamber, on the other hand, is expecting some blowback for his latest show, “Altered Images: 150 Years of Posed and Manipulated Documentary Photography,” which opens this weekend at the Bronx Documentary Center.
And he’s perfectly O.K. with that.
“I think there will be some unhappy people,” said Mr. Kamber, a photojournalist and founder of the center. “That’s good. If people would stop faking photos, then they wouldn’t have to be worried about being called out.”
The exhibit, a selection of well-known images that have been altered, staged or faked, is an indictment of some modern practices, and practitioners, of photojournalism. At a time when veteran photographers are being replaced by newcomers or untrained “citizen journalists,” it also raises important questions about the profession’s future amid increasing doubts about the veracity of images.
Mr. Kamber, who covered the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and conflicts in Africa for The New York Times, would be infuriated whenever he saw photographers pose images in the field or alter them in postprocessing.
“I’ve lost friends who put their lives on the line to get it right, and then you have people faking it,” said Mr. Kamber, who was close to both Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros, who were killed in Libya. “It’s a betrayal. Just get it right. Don’t change things, don’t direct your subjects, don’t lie in your captions, don’t move pixels. Get it right. That’s what we’re here to do.”
The exhibit, which consists of more than 40 images, catalogs some of the darker moments in the history of photojournalism. And there is enough material to leave many news organizations red-faced: National Geographic for digitally moving Egyptian pyramids; Time magazine for darkening O.?J. Simpson’s skin color; Magnum and Pictures of the Year International for a dramatic award-winning image by Paolo Pellegrin with a misleading caption (below); Associated Press and Reuters for moving digitally altered scenes from the Middle East; and The New York Times for publishing a posed photograph in 2002 of a boy holding a toy gun outside an Arabian-foods grocery.
A screen shot of Paolo Pellegrin’s image of Shane Keller on the Pictures of the Year International website. Mr. Pellegrin won first place in the Photographer of the Year — Freelance/Agency category. The photo was included in more than one award-winning contest entry.
A screen shot of Paolo Pellegrin’s image of Shane Keller on the Pictures of the Year International website. Mr. Pellegrin won first place in the Photographer of the Year — Freelance/Agency category. The photo was included in more than one award-winning contest entry.Credit
More recently, during the rioting in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray, who was injured while in police custody, an image circulated widely on social media that purported to show the city burning. It had actually been taken in Venezuela.
During this year’s World Press photo contest, about 20 percent of the entrants that reached the second-to-last round of judging were disqualified for significantly altering images in post processing and Giovanni Troilo was stripped of a first prize in the face of charges of misrepresentation and posing images (the photographer said he had “made a mistake,” but had not intended to deceive). In the vigorous debate that followed, some ridiculed the concept of “objective photojournalism” as philosophically tenuous in a postmodern world.
Mr. Kamber said he was inspired to do the show when Phil Leonian, a longtime New York studio photographer, called him in the aftermath of the debate over manipulated images in the World Press contest. Mr. Leonian encouraged him to mount an exhibit and financed it.
The exhibit shows that there have been ethical issues from the very beginning of photojournalism. Roger Fenton’s “Valley of the Shadow of Death,” made in 1855 during the Crimean War, was the first well-known conflict photograph and a forerunner of modern photojournalism. But there are two negatives taken by Mr. Fenton at the same location — one showing the road littered with cannonballs and the other with the cannonballs at the side of the road, which means that someone moved them.
The show also refers to Robert Capa’s classic “Falling Soldier” photo from the Spanish Civil War, an image that has been widely challenged as staged.
Posing was common in 19th-century conflict photos by Mr. Fenton and the Civil War photographers Mathew Brady and Alexander Gardner. Smaller cameras and faster film in the 1930s allowed photographers to stop motion and capture candid moments, which, in turn, spurred a set of ethical standards that demanded accuracy in journalistic photographs.
But as 20th-century technology allowed for more “truthful” images, the advent of digital photography has made it easier to produce misleading images. There are more cases of posed and manipulated images today than ever before, Mr. Kamber said.
“I think the main reason is that photography is a lot more democratic today and I think that’s great,” Mr. Kamber, 51, said. “But 20 years ago there were more staff photographers, and they knew very clearly that altering a photo was a fireable offense. Newspapers are laying off photographers by the hundreds, and there are all these young freelancers who have not been properly trained in what is or is not allowable or ethical.”
When Mr. Kamber was a young freelancer, his editors looked at his contact sheets and could more easily tell if a photograph had been posed by studying the frames before and after. Today photojournalists send in single images from the field and can easily alter them on their laptop or smartphone.
Mr. Kamber proudly admits that he is from “the old school” and sees good journalism as the front line of democracy. The public must have faith in the veracity of photojournalists, he said.
“People say that using a different lens or moving two feet to the left will change the perspective,” Mr. Kamber said. “Sure, but there has to be some integrity. I have to know that what I’m seeing on the page was exactly what was in front of you when you snapped the shutter and that you did not set the photo up or manipulate it.”
The exhibit, of which Bianca Farrow was a co-curator, is not intended to impose a viewpoint, but to prompt discussion about what is and is not allowable in photojournalism and documentary photography.
“Different news organizations have different standards and different contests have different standards,” Mr. Kamber said. “This is a discussion that we must have before we’ve destroyed all credibility in photojournalism.”
“Altered Images: 150 Years of Posed and Manipulated Documentary Photography,” will be open from this weekend at the Bronx Documentary Center until Aug. 2.
Follow @followbdc, @JamesEstrin and @nytimesphoto on Twitter. Lens is also on Facebook and Instagram.
An American political commentator believes that the United States and Israel are undoubtedly the world’s “two leading terrorist organizations.”
“There really can be no serious doubt that the United States and Israel are the two leading terrorist organizations in the world which is the reason why the Department of State has to made incoherent claims such as that Iran is classified as a terrorist organization,” said American philosopher James Fetzer.
He made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Saturday when asked to comment on an annual report by the US State Department that has accused Iran of supporting international terrorist groups, including those militant groups fighting against ISIL terrorists in Iraq and Syria.
The report, however, makes almost no mention of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, which are widely believed to be the main supporters of terrorists in the Middle East. The US itself stands accused of financing and arming militants in the region.
Fetzer said “the United States created the ISIS (ISIL), the United States is sponsoring the ISIS, the United States has opposed the United Nations’ declaration that ISIS is a terrorist organization.”
The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology – all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.
The planes’ surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge’s approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations. The FBI said it uses front companies to protect the safety of the pilots and aircraft. It also shields the identity of the aircraft so that suspects on the ground don’t know they’re being watched by the FBI.
In a recent 30-day period, the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country, an AP review found. (more…)
We are very happy to announce that at the 2015 PorcFest we will be holding another Change Media University Bootcamp! If you don’t know what PorcFest is, the best way to describe it is as a yearly anarchist burning man festival in New Hampshire. You can find out more about it by going on their website HERE.
FREE TALK: “Making A Living Pissing Off Politicians”
The price goes up to $157.27 1 week before the event and for on site registration. BTC and silver are accepted on site for the original price of $99.27
WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT
1. A full day of one on one, training you personally on the entire Change Media University Course. You will also be registered for the online courses after the bootcamp.
2. Interactive games, drills, obstacles course, special prizes with physical and mental workouts.
3. This is not your ordinary bootcamp. We will go from the full spectrum of laughing yoga to tequila shots. LITERALLY
4. This course is not only meant to be informative but a course to have fun and let loose.
5. We will not only teach you informative ways to start your journalism career or to make a significant presence online but try to shape you to be the best, positive, most productive version of yourself.
6. Here is a snippet of what to expect
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
*We did this course in Mexico at ANARCHAPULCO with 52 students and had a 100% satisfaction rate with no refunds requested. If at the end of the course you feel like you did not get the value of what you paid for, we will personally issue you a refund.*
The mainstream media has failed us time and time again. Their appalling lack of integrity, tenacity, and spine continues on a daily basis, insulting anyone paying attention. We Are Change is creating a platform where aspiring journalists can achieve success and develop their careers without jumping through degrading corporate hoops.12 years ago with a cheap camera borrowed from a friend, I dedicated my life to confronting those who repeatedly escaped justice. No longer would the perpetrators of hate and violence continue to walk amongst us without repercussions.We have successfully exposed the hypocrisies of Henry Kissinger, Ben Bernanke, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, Jacob Rothschild, Mayor Bloomberg, Larry Silverstein, and the Rockefeller family. We have reached millions of people, operating on a shoestring budget while effecting laws, vindicating people who were falsely charged, creating national debates, and awareness on issues that would have never seen the light of day.Our mission is to create a new generation of journalists, unafraid of institutionalized authority, unafraid to challenge the status quo and preconceived notions. Let’s promote honesty, open discussion, transparency, compassion, and critical thinking.We Are Change is producing a world of dedicated journalists. Instead of talking heads parroting press releases, we want to inspire investigative reporters to spread across every city digging for answers while poking holes in the “official” versions of events.
Luke Rudkowski is an American investigative journalist and founder of We Are Change, a libertarian, independent media organization comprising individuals and groups working to expose worldwide corruption and hold authoritative figures to account for their actions and crimes in which their involvement has been covered up or hidden from public knowledge.
Because of the recent and continued Google/YouTube/Adsense Censorship against WeAreChange, we decided to open up a store and sell products by local artists to mutually support the artists and be able to continue the media operations of WeAreChange. Proceeds from these sales go towards WeAreChange and the artist who created these items. Thats why we are now selling these custom hand made WeAreChange Pendants and custom painted V for Vendetta masks. If you have a product that you make or sell and would like to sell them on WeAreChange, please contact Luke@wearechange.org or mail your product to our mailing address.