Thoughts on Fluoridation?

[N8RV]

It's a Communist conspiracy! They're contaminating our precious bodily fluids!

Gen. Buck Turgidson! Welcome to INGO!

 

[Classic]

Well it is a poison. When the dentist gives you a fluoride treatment you are told not to swallow. Don't use regular toothpaste on toddlers or babies or pets because they might swallow it. If it is a poison how would one know how much of a dose they would get from the drinking water? People are of course different sizes and drink different amounts of water.

 

[downzero]

Well it is a poison. When the dentist gives you a fluoride treatment you are told not to swallow. Don't use regular toothpaste on toddlers or babies or pets because they might swallow it. If it is a poison how would one know how much of a dose they would get from the drinking water? People are of course different sizes and drink different amounts of water.

I'm sure there's no relationship to the dose or anything, and the water contains just as much fluoride as a "fluoride treatment" or that adults are just as sensitive as toddlers.

Similarly, don't ever put a drop of bleach in your canteen to keep your water from getting nasty, as bleach is poison and you'll die.

 

[Valvestate]

Looking at some chemistry, since stomach acid is more reactive than the flouride additive and the additive is pretty stable against what's in water except against your stomach acid, the sodium flouride would react with stomach acid (probably slowly) to make table salt and hydroflouric acid which would then react to the minerals in the water that are weaker bonded. Thoughts?

 

[nomadicmutt]

Interesting... ever considered simply gulping down the lemonade then rinsing with water (and then brushing afterward)? That should tremendously remove the ability of the lemonade to affect your teeth. The acid will only affect your teeth while its in your mouth... Once its ingested, it doesn't effect your teeth at all, but will go to your kidneys and do what you claim.

This goes for any food for that matter.... Drinking a gallon of Mountain Dew in less than 2 minutes is much better for your teeth than sipping a 12oz can over 30 minutes because once the drink or food is out of the mouth, saliva will buffer out the acidity.... If you re-introduce the drink periodically, rather than all at once... then saliva will never get a chance to buffer out the drink and acid by product will continue

My dentist told to start doing that... He also told me to use a straw.

Nice and low-tech.

 

[wolfts01]

ThrottleJockey, I won't engage in a debate with you over the science. If you want to believe that there are as yet undocumented and unsubstantiated side effects on other organ systems, believe what you will. Perhaps you are right -- someday, someone may discover that Alzheimer's, MS, MD or autism is directly linked to fluoride in communal water supplies. However, that hasn't happened yet, even though it has been studied ad nauseum for over 60 years. Until then, however, it's only chasing phantoms.

Also, keep in mind that the effects of minute amounts of fluoride in drinking water are not cumulative, unlike some other elements or compounds. A little bit of arsenic each day, for example, builds up to lethal levels. Don't confuse the two.

Sometimes we just need to accept that we don't have all the answers. Sometimes we must trust the science we have and accept that we may learn new truth as scientific discovery unfolds in time. Asbestos was great stuff until it was discovered that it was a causative agent in asbestosis and mesothelioma. Nobody knew, but we know now.

What we know NOW is that teeth are made significantly more resistant to tooth decay with the ingestion of small amounts of fluoride. What we do NOT know now is if there are any long-term effects that may make us wish we'd never used it. Is that fear valid enough for society to accept a risk of some possible side effect over a known benefit? That's up to each community to decide, as it should be. We should just be thankful that the federal government hasn't (yet) made that mandate for "the good of the people."

So, it's your call. You can lose sleep over what MIGHT happen with fluoridation in the absence of scientific evidence, or you can enjoy the benefits of what we know WILL happen with decades of scientific fact.

Not much more I can add to the discussion, sorry.

I think (hope) I speak for most in the anti-fluoride camp that it is not the good effects of fluoride that are directly in question. It is a naturally-occurring trace mineral, so it is not inherently evil as some sources try to make it.

Whether or not there are any unproven dangers we still have the fact that a study of 480,000 children from both non and fluoridated areas from all over the world showed no statistical difference in the tooth decay rates. Even disregarding that, we have the dangers of dental fluorosis, which is commonly observed even in places with naturally occurring levels (less than 4ppm limit we have). Fluorosis has also been shown to have a positive correlation to periodontal disease (not to be taken as fluoride itself is linked, but the condition of fluorosis).

I can't verify the truth of the statement, but I've read that 50% of consumed fluoride is retained in calcified tissues.

You admit that the target population is only a specific age group of children, yet ALL water is treated. This makes no sense as an implementation of the treatment, especially since topical application is the most effective in the first place. It is also completely absurd that the dosage is completely uncontrolled through fluoridation. Doing the "healthy" thing and drinking 6-8 glasses could end up giving you an overdose when other sources of fluoride are considered.

At any rate, we should have the ability to choose fluoridation. I can't imagine a subsidized fluoride supplement for children would be anywhere near as costly as fluoridating the entire public water supply.

I also have yet to hear why we are the only nation implementing fluoridation on a large scale.

 

[downzero]

I also have yet to hear why we are the only nation implementing fluoridation on a large scale.

See my posts. It's clearly a communist plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids. We have known since 1964.

 

[wolfts01]

Found a video illustrating my main concerns about what doctors recommend:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI[/ame]


Dentists apparently aren't immune either:

 

[ThrottleJockey]

That's up to each community to decide, as it should be. We should just be thankful that the federal government hasn't (yet) made that mandate for "the good of the people."

Does this imply that the community I live in is better suited at some level of government to decide what is best for ME in MY life with MY health/medical history? I hope you really didn't mean it the way it reads.

 

[Classic]

I just haven't seen ay data that suggests a direct correlation between communities that put fluoride in the water and any kind of tooth decay reduction. Absent that evidence why pay to put more crap into the water supply?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Say what? I used to put sealants on teeth (very common procedure)... There seems to be some kind of break down in communication.

Basically what a sealant does is fill deep crevices on the chewing surface of teeth to prevent food and bacteria from getting lodged in there. It makes it easier for a toothbrush to wipe out the bad stuff... They are great for preventing future problems, but they won't fix any existing problems.

(btw... I do not trust the intentions of all dentists. I think many dentists have a bad habit of selling patients on frivolous procedures to fatten the bill. Because lets face it.. the normal person doesn't have a clue on what they are being told. I'm not suggesting that dentists do fillings or pull teeth that don't need it, although I'm sure that happens OFTEN as well... but sealants are a harmless procedure that require very little overhead or time and can rake in big bucks)

I know the basic idea behind sealants. And it is possible the guy misunderstood what his Dentist was telling him or that I misunderstood what he was telling me.

And luckily I have a Dentist I trust, my son had sealant put on his teeth before I got custody of him. A few years later the hygenist mentioned some was starting to come off. The Dentist checked and asked if I wanted it redone. I asked his opinion and he told me he wouldn't recommend it, there were grooves but they were very shallow and in his opinion wouldn't need it.

Although I've hear horror stories about Dentists in the UK. It seems they are paid very little for a cleaning/checkup from the Gov. So they push everything they can including root canals and other surgery. The guy who was telling me about it (UK native) said that is one of the reasons behind the stereotyping of bad teeth on Brits. He said it wasn't that much of a stereotype, but it was because the people were afraid to go to the Dentist unless they absolutely had too.

 

[bullet293]

I think (hope) I speak for most in the anti-fluoride camp that it is not the good effects of fluoride that are directly in question. It is a naturally-occurring trace mineral, so it is not inherently evil as some sources try to make it.

Whether or not there are any unproven dangers we still have the fact that a study of 480,000 children from both non and fluoridated areas from all over the world showed no statistical difference in the tooth decay rates. Even disregarding that, we have the dangers of dental fluorosis, which is commonly observed even in places with naturally occurring levels (less than 4ppm limit we have). Fluorosis has also been shown to have a positive correlation to periodontal disease (not to be taken as fluoride itself is linked, but the condition of fluorosis).

I can't verify the truth of the statement, but I've read that 50% of consumed fluoride is retained in calcified tissues.

You admit that the target population is only a specific age group of children, yet ALL water is treated. This makes no sense as an implementation of the treatment, especially since topical application is the most effective in the first place. It is also completely absurd that the dosage is completely uncontrolled through fluoridation. Doing the "healthy" thing and drinking 6-8 glasses could end up giving you an overdose when other sources of fluoride are considered.

At any rate, we should have the ability to choose fluoridation. I can't imagine a subsidized fluoride supplement for children would be anywhere near as costly as fluoridating the entire public water supply.

I also have yet to hear why we are the only nation implementing fluoridation on a large scale.

calcium fluoride is natural organic trace mineral our body needs. our water is treated with sodium fluoride and is a toxic unused by product from superphosphate fertilizer used on crops that would need to be disposed of if they didnt sell it to our local water company. dont worry drink your water and remember to take your shots also beacause your govt loves you!!!!!

 

[bullet293]

and what ever you do dont read the harvard study on flouride

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Fluoride in the water has no dental effects whatsoever. If you read about fluoride, it must sit on the teeth for an amount of time and should NOT be ingested. Why do you think the dentist tells you not to swallow it and spit it out>?

[FONT=Verdana,Geneva]Fluoride has never received FDA approval for human consumption. The FDA has approved fluoride for use in rat poison and other pesticides. Nice huh?


Here's the CDC Report
[/FONT]

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Here is proof of the evils of this great conspiracy that has undermined our great nation in an attempt to sap our strength, making us weak and docile in preparation for a commie takeover!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM

And here is who we must join with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAHJCPoWCC8

I wonder if he realizes that tobacco also impurifies???

Regards,

Doug