|  |
| All | |
| $24.55 | Used
- VeryGood | | |
| $28.88 | New | | |
| $28.89 | New | | |
| $30.36 | New | | |
| $31.63 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $31.64 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $31.64 | New | | |
| $31.96 This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. | New | | |
| $33.63 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $34.93 | New | | |
| $34.93 | New | | |
| $36.60 | New | | |
| $37.15 | New | | |
| $37.66 | New | | |
| $38.26 | New | | |
| $38.75 | New | | |
| $38.89 | New | | |
| $39.52 | New | | |
| $39.72 | New | | |
| $41.24 | New | | |
| $42.48 | New | | |
| $43.31 | New | | |
| $47.86 | New | | |
| $48.39 | New | | |
| $50.03 | New | | |
| $53.30 | New | | |
| $54.09 | New | | |
| $57.53 | New | | |
| $60.53 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $60.54 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $61.78 | New | | |
| $399.50 | Used
- Good | | |
| New | |
| $28.88 | New | | |
| $28.89 | New | | |
| $30.36 | New | | |
| $31.64 | New | | |
| $31.96 This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. | New | | |
| $34.93 | New | | |
| $34.93 | New | | |
| $36.60 | New | | |
| $37.15 | New | | |
| $37.66 | New | | |
| $38.26 | New | | |
| $38.75 | New | | |
| $38.89 | New | | |
| $39.52 | New | | |
| $39.72 | New | | |
| $41.24 | New | | |
| $42.48 | New | | |
| $43.31 | New | | |
| $47.86 | New | | |
| $48.39 | New | | |
| $50.03 | New | | |
| $53.30 | New | | |
| $54.09 | New | | |
| $57.53 | New | | |
| $61.78 | New | | |
| Used | |
| $24.55 | Used
- VeryGood | | |
| $31.63 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $31.64 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $33.63 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $60.53 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $60.54 | Used
- Mint | | |
| $399.50 | Used
- Good | | |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 "Modest" propaganda Aug 12, 2010
This book is a shabbily written exercise in "balance" and like most projects with that in their public brief, there's a real slant hidden underneath the gentle image of fairness they pretend to espouse. (See other reviews on this page.) The fluoride hoax is collapsing in 2010 and there are sufficient and well-known backers of this ugly public health mistake who are not going to let it go quietly; this sort of rubbish is most likely paid for, directly or indirectly, (see the "free market" author's background, elsewhere in these reviews), by those corporate forces. It won't work anymore, the half century fluoridation effort if crumbling under stacks of real science, all pointing to the massiveness of the mistake here in the US. Reminds me of those big tobacco CEO in congress in the 1990's, swearing they didn't know anything, only to be proven, to a CEO man, that they were lying. Books like this make ethical writers cringe. Avoid.
3 of 8 found the following review helpful:
Propaganda disguised as scholarship Aug 05, 2009
The Fluoride Wars is a slick attempt to paint opposition to fluoridation in a negative light while at the same time leaving not so subtle hints that no self-respecting person would become involved in this cause. Each page is crafted to undermine the case for non-fluoridated water by selective citation and half-truths. The writers disperse the evidence that supports an end to fluoridation over scattered pages so that only the most intrepid reader would be able to put it back together. It is a piece of propaganda masquerading as a scholarly work. The pseudo-journalistic style, with flippant references to pop culture, tries to hide the steep slant to the story in which the opponents to fluoridation are "a few local cranks", "kooky antifluoridationists", "unfashionable Don Quixotes", people who have "a creed", or are "tilting at windmills". The book is liberally sprinkled with words like "kooks" and "cranks", "circus" "secret handshakes", "subculture", "fluorophobia" and "quack". The intent is clear: if you have any standing in society, you do not want to be associated with these people.
By page five it is clear the book is not a well-rounded scholarly work, but the latest spin from the pro-fluoridation side:
"Look, Ma. No cavities", say the smiling children in the old Crest ads, as they run toward their mother's outstretched arms. Who could argue against no cavities and a mother's love? Certainly not the American Dental Association, or the Surgeon General, or anybody else that matters, all of whom say that fluoride is good for you. That ought to be enough for most of us.
And so it is for most of us, but not all of us." [Note the confusion over topical vs. systemic application, also the argument from authority logical fallacy.]
The book contains no preface or introduction, so the authors do not tell us what motivated them to write it. Jay H. Lehr is a businessman and motivational speaker, who is said to have written hundreds of journal and magazine articles. A Web of Science database search under his name lists 104 articles, but they are almost all editorials and commentaries from the journals Ground Water and Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, the most recent being fifteen years ago. Eighty-two of them have never been cited by anyone and so, from an academic perspective, are considered quite literally useless. He is listed as Senior Scientist at The Heartland Institute, the Chicago-based "libertarian"/conservative think tank that opposes the idea that human civilization is creating climate change and opposes regulation of cigarette smoking. He is also Chief Scientist for EarthWater Global, a company that "locates, develops and manages" "megawatersheds". It was recently in the news for entering into an MOU with the government of Kenya, whose water sector is riddled with corruption, according to Transparency International. R. Allan Freeze is a former college professor who now runs his own engineering company. He has published many widely cited papers, again on the topic of ground water. According to the same database neither author has ever previously published anything on water fluoridation, which would explain the lack of preface or introduction. So it appears Freeze is the scientist and Lehr is the popularizer who was brought in - why? The role of the two authors is mysterious in that the text is written sometimes in the plural "we", sometimes in the singular "I", and the acknowledgments are only signed by Freeze. A scholarly book would leave no mystery over the role of the authors. The author(s) acknowledge no research help in preparing the book, yet neither has ever published anything on the topic previously. Since neither author has any background in this area, and since neither has written this type of journalistic investigation before, one has to wonder if the book was ghost written. In any event we have two businessmen-scientists who make a living developing water resources. They appear to be not the "give people the liberty to decide for themselves"-type of libertarians, but rather the "give industry or property owners the liberty to do as they want without government regulations that protect people from toxic exposures"-type of libertarians.
The book is definitely packaged as a scholarly work intended for the academic library, not a trade book for the masses. It has the higher price, the lack of dust jacket (that libraries discard). There are the little, full bibliographic footnotes on the first page of each chapter as in certain scholarly books. It is clearly written to dissuade students or other professionals from the idea that there might actually be something to this opposition to fluoridation. Besides, why risk your career getting involved?
But this is a very slovenly piece of scholarship. For example, the authors like to use tables, and in Table 2.5 - Fluoridation Status of Developed Countries of the World, the authors list the Czech Republic and Russia as two countries that have some population using fluoridated water, but then add the footnote "Before the fall of the iron curtain in 1989. Current situation unknown." Really? Why is that? Are these two countries on some outer planet with which we have no communication? Why didn't the authors investigate? Or at least pay someone to find out?
There are nearly 20 tables in the book. But they use them in a funny way. Instead of being a clear way to make a list of facts, the tables often contain highly subjective statements as in Table 6.1 "An Assessment of Anti-Fluoridation Conspiracy Claims" which lists the question, "Is there any reason to question Hodge's motivations in supporting fluoridation" and the answer "not really". This is opinion not scholarship.
The book is titled The Fluoride Wars to go along with the Culture Wars and the Science Wars, to give the reader the impression that opposition to water fluoridation is not based on principle or evidence, but on mere ideology.
The authors call the struggle a melodrama, which the dictionary defines as a sensational, extravagantly emotional action or utterance. In this case the authors are clearly mistaken. "America's (sic) longest running political melodrama" is the United States Congress. The use of the term melodrama, which can surely be applied to most contentious issues (freedom fries, anyone?), is an indication that the authors want to play up the sensational aspects of the history. The title also suggests that the whole affair is much ado about nothing, so you needn't have any concerns about fluoride. Ditto the chapter subheadings
The chapter subheadings also have this ironic, pop culture language that tries to make the book appear hip and postmodern. The term informed consent does not appear in the book, and it is clear that the authors are oblivious to the fact that this concept motivates much of the opposition to fluoridation. The Heartland Institute should be stripped of any association with libertarianism.
One brief mention of the ethical opposition in Table 2.6 asks "How does fluoridation compare with other intrusive but apparently widely accepted governmental programs, such as tax collection or the setting of speed limits." Dudes, are you kidding me? Tax collection accepted? No way. Everyone tries to get out of paying taxes.
The Fluoride Wars is an example of propaganda in the guise of a scholarly work. Readers who do not know the subject are likely to be misled, and perhaps angry when they realize how far they have been misled.
This book was published in 2009, three years after the National Research Council's report on EPA's fluoridation level, a report the ADA refused to recognize, as do these authors.
To see how densely packed is the deceit by omission, consider the author's treatment of the Chester Douglass scandal. They don't call it that, but we can because it is very rare for a professor to be charged with misconduct. Instead the section is headed "The Osteosarcoma Controversy". In contrast, the authors use the heading the "The Marcus Affair" to focus on the isolated individual
Here is the text with my numbered annotations:
"In an attempt to lay these worries to rest (1), the National Institute of Environmental Health Services (a branch of the National Institutes of Health) decided to fund a 15-year epidemiological study on the possible role of fluoride intake on the incidence of osteosarcoma. The grant was awarded to the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, with Chester W. Douglass as principal investigator (2). Much to the chagrin of the project's leaders (3), the first results, contained in the 2001 doctoral thesis of a graduate student, Elise Bassin, indicated a "robust" relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in young males (5 to 10 years old) (4). Douglass, for his part, considered this work preliminary (5). He did not encourage early publication of the results in a technical publication, nor did he report them to NIEHS in a 2004 overview report to the agency (6). It is his contention that Bassin's results have not been replicated in subsequent stages of the overall study (7)
"In June 2005, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an advocacy group whose primary goal is "to protect the most vulnerable segments of the human population from toxic contaminants," found out about Bassin's thesis and demanded that NIEHS carry out an investigation to determine whether Douglass' actions constituted a cover-up of facts that could pose a risk to society (and to the fluoridation movement) (8). Learning of the EWG charges, Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network called for Douglass's immediate removal (9). William Hirzy (a strong anti-fluoride leader whom we meet in Chapter 9) called for a nationwide moratorium on fluoridation until the issue is resolved. (10)
At the behest of NIEHS, Harvard University set up an inquiry panel to review Douglass' actions. One year later, in August 2006, the panel reported the results of their deliberations. They exonerated Douglass, finding that he did not "intentionally omit, misrepresent, or suppress the findings" of his graduate student. Anti-fluoridation web sites have honed in not on the exoneration, but on the word "intentionally". In the same year, Bassin's results were finally published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control (11). Douglass was not a co-author on the paper. In fact, he submitted a letter to the editor that was published in the same journal urging caution and warning against "overinterpretation or generalization" of these early results of the planned long-term study at Harvard.
Annotations:
1. Despite lecturing us on how wrong it is for scientists to conduct a study with the intent of proving something, the authors accept the practice here. Prior to the research it is a preconceived result that fluoridation doesn't cause caner.
2. The authors omit a major criticism of this arrangement - why is a dental researcher being asked to study bone cancer? Secondly, why is someone who is paid by Colgate, a fluoridated toothpaste-maker involved in this research? It is a prima facie case of conflict of interest, but the authors don't tell the readers.
3. Why should the researchers express chagrin? They have done nothing wrong. It should be the opposite - they should be happy they made a discovery that might help save peoples' lives. The unstated propagandistic reason for the "chagrin" is that they may have made a discovery that could jeopardize their carriers. That is what the authors want the readers to understand unconsciously.
4. The authors omit the key point of the Bassin study, that make it superior to other epidemiological studies of this sort, that they actually quantified the exposure in years to the fluoride. So it seems like just another study. They also omit that there was a five-fold increased risk in the fluoridated population.
5. The authors, who like to lecture us on the working of science, omit the fact that it is always expected that PhD students publish their work - generally they try to stretch it into three or more papers if possible. Douglass' action here is the direct opposite of standard academic practice, but the authors don't tell you that.
6. The authors omit the damning fact that Douglass actually reported that Bassin's study found no link to cancer. Black is white to Douglass, but this is omitted.
7. It is his contention, but the authors omit the fact that Douglass has never published these results. It is his word with nothing to back it up, but the reader doesn't know that.
8. The author's omit the charge that he actually lied about the findings.
9. Connett was actually the one who uncovered the whole scandal.
10. The authors omit that it was not just Hirzy but EPA union leaders from around the country. To suggest, as they do, that it was just Hirzy is quite deceitful.
11. The authors omit the fact that Harvard did not follow the government's rules in conducting the inquiry in that the party that brought the charges against Douglass, the EWG, was not allowed to present its case to the panel. This would have forced the panel to address specific questions, and make a cover-up more difficult.
So we have corrections and whole truths that run as long as the original text. This could be done with every page of the book. In this sense, the book is valuable as a study in propaganda.
This book is a piece of propaganda disguised as scholarship written to muddy the water at a time the NRC has released a devastating blow to the pro-fluoride camp.
Ironically these authors clearly see the struggle over fluoridation as essentially a battle between industry and the grassroots over exposure to a toxic industrial pollutant, yet most environmentalists, who profess concern over such matters, remain oblivious to this common cause.
-reprinted (with permission) from a review by Michael F. Dolan, The Non-Fluoridated Consumer, August 2009
6 of 10 found the following review helpful:
 Makes It A Fair Fight Jun 11, 2009
Definitely an interesting read - a unique mix of social history and popular science. I learned more about fluoride than I thought there was to know! It's filled with lots of anecdotal stories and interesting historical tidbits, vignettes of the principal players on both sides for the fluoride discussion.
I didn't think that the book chose one side or another - and then I read the first reviews. Interestingly, some of the people who gave the book unfavorable reviews are all strong opposers of fluoride who's organizations and arguments are covered in the book.
It's an interesting conflict - covering the controversy of fluoridation (which I didn't realize was a controversy until I read this) - including the almost universal support from the medical-dental establishment, as well as the effective and street-smart strategies of a well-organized opposition.
Fluoride is a double-edged sword. The authors conclude that public water fluoridation, together with the advent of fluoridated toothpaste, are undoubtedly responsible for the precipitous drop in the incidence of childhood dental cavities. But they also join the call for reduced fluoride dosages in public supplies to protect against the threat of negative bone health impacts.
"The Flouride Wars" discusses the heated conflict between the pro-fluoride and anti-fluoride camps. Nothing makes this case more clearly than the first reviews posted on Amazon.com by some of the leaders of the antiflouridation movement in America.
It's definitely a "war" that makes for an interesting read. I don't want a book to make decisions for me, I want it to present both sides honestly. Open-minded readers will find balanced coverage of this long-standing controversy so they can make their own decisions.
3 of 8 found the following review helpful:
Balanced? Not really. Apr 17, 2009
Having been handed the freedom of continual ignorance by the general public through the last sixty years, the well entrenched industry that supports the addition of a neurotoxin into our drinking water now has another book that supports this ill advised and risky practice. The authors have dutifully included many proper references to the sordid history of fluoridation into their narrative while stealthily managing to discredit those who have strongly opposed fluoridation with the selectivity of a master writer. Rather than creating an unbiased work of balance supported by primary literature, Freeze and Lehr have relied heavily on stories from the emotional history of fluoride that contribute readability to their work. The fact that their book is published by mega publisher Wiley should allow some room for credibility. Yet, the title alone should awaken some small amount of doubt as to the author's true intentions, that of supporting fluoridation, which is something the authors promise up front will not be the case. Generally speaking, while promising to "find a middle ground" on the issue, the authors have obviously crafted a work that strongly supports the continuation of "The Longest Running Circus in Town" without actually helping to inform the public about the longest running scam in town.
As mentioned in the book, the fluoride issue is extremely complex. Most people simply do not have time to discover the many deceptions and cover ups involved. Many professionals, though they should know better, have essentially failed to go to the primary literature to compare their absolute statements with reality. "Fluoride Wars" seems to gloss over and ignore many of the more important and damaging aspects of the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water.
Upon hearing that this book was to be published, I immediately contacted some of the nationally recognized experts and health professionals that I know in the anti-fluoridation movement. Apparently none of them had been contacted or interviewed for "Fluoride Wars." How can a researcher write a book like this without actually interviewing those who represent the "other side" of the issue? This alone casts a pall of doubt over the credibility of the authors' non-position.
Frankly, I was amazed when I originally interviewed many of those involved with the anti-fluoridation movement at the sincerity, honesty, and quality of people involved as activists. This was in direct contrast to the subtle misdirection, ambiguity, and condescending attitude directed at my inquiries by those whose positions in public health were supposed to protect the best interests of those they serve. I was surprised to see so many people trained in science intentionally ignore an alternate viewpoint, whether supported by evidence or not. To those public servants, it seemed to be a game of personal power and authority over that of the common good. The very titles of chapters contained in "Fluoride Wars" remind me of this same distasteful, condescending attitude despite stating otherwise in the book's product description. Too many of those in the pro-fluoride camp act as if their very position and title give them immunity from facing the cold hard facts of chemistry.
The authors have once again unnecessarily brought forward a mention of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece black comedy, "Dr. Strangelove" and its over the top character, Colonel Jack Ripper. Colonel Ripper is frequently brought forward by pro-fluoridationists to subtly imply some measure of mental shortfall on the part of anyone who works against fluoridation. Though one must agree that there will be crackpots and extremists in every major social movement, the anti-fluoridation initiative is one movement that makes perfect sense for the health of citizens of America and for the world. When good science is utilized in public policy, the need for continued debate and carefully designed research eventually subsides, and a general consensus is reached on the merits of a practice. There will be no consensus on the issue of fluoride because brute advertising and political force has been used in lieu of the normally accepted standards of science. Continuing to force feed a very potent toxin to entire populations cannot be accepted by informed citizens who simply want clean, safe water dispensed from their tap. One positive aspect of "Fluoride Wars" is that in the process of shooting themselves in the foot, Freeze and Lehr will have brought even more attention to the "issue that will not go away."
For a very thoroughly researched and documented version of why the anti-fluoride movement continues, along with a description of its historical beginnings the reader is directed to Mr. Christopher Bryson's book, "The Fluoride Deception." And, much of the current peer reviewed scientific information on fluoride's adverse health effects that are neglectfully missing from "Fluoride Wars" are available through the Fluoride Action Network.
9 of 14 found the following review helpful:
Don't waste your money on this book. Apr 16, 2009
The authors of The Fluoride Wars seem stuck in the 1950's when children played in the spray of DDT trucks, smoking was encouraged by physicians and adding unnecessary fluoride chemicals into public water supplies, as an unproven children's tooth decay medicine, seemed like a good idea. The book is neither objective nor middle ground and borders on plagiarism in parts. It definitely reflects the authors pro-fluoridation beliefs.
It appears the authors did little original research and borrowed many quotes from other published sources. The authors seem to have little interest in, or a poor understanding of, actual fluoride science.
They use inflammatory quotes and stories from articles available on the Internet and then write how worried they are that the Internet is used as a tool for propaganda.
Actually, the internet is almost the only place you can read, unfiltered, what those of us opposed to fluoridation have to say. We believe you are smart enough to sort out the truth.
As pointed out by Dr. Paul Connett in his review of this book, the authors are aware of the National Research Council's (2006) 500+ page report on the health effects and toxicology of fluoride but the authors of The Fluoride Wars don't report on what's in it. Any book on fluoride or fluoridation that doesn't include the findings and recommendations of this major review of current fluoride science shouldn't be taken seriously.
The authors describe the fluoridation battle in Connersville, Indiana, where a fluoride supporter and magician foolishly eats a whole tube of fluoridated toothpaste to prove it is non-toxic. However, it is toxic. Such a stupid stunt by a small child could be fatal. Instead of explaining the health risks associated with this performance, the author denigrates fluoridation opposers for suggesting this magician used sleight of hand to switch to a tube of non-fluoridated paste. The story and quotes are lifted from a newspaper article available on the Internet.
These shenanigans enabled fluoridation to begin in Connersville in 2000 despite a 1999 research article published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (1999 Aug;27(4):288-97) which showed that Connersville children already consumed too much fluoride from food and dental products putting them at greater risk of dental fluorosis (discolored teeth). Instead of reducing intake as this research paper advised, local dentists misinformed legislators and residents that children needed more via water fluoridation. The authors of The Fluoride Wars fail to tell readers this vital information even though Wiley publishes both this journal and this book. They should all be very embarrassed.
It's also revealing that the authors acknowledge Warren Wood as providing supportive reviews of the final manuscript. We wonder if this is the same Warren Wood who is on the Louisiana Fluoridation Advisory Board which is charged with promoting water fluoridation. I don't see any evidence that the authors consulted any scientist or activist opposed to fluoridation
Those interested the history and politics behind the unscientific and risky practice of fluoridation can read The Fluoride Deception by award-winning journalist Christopher Bryson. It's original, clearly referenced and a good read.
Those interested in fluoride science and how, even low doses added to public water supplies, can be harmful to some people - especially babies, high water drinkers, thyroid and kidney patients - read the NRC report (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards)
Carol S. Kopf, B.S., M.A.
|
| | |
