145 replies to this topic

[Chrlzs]

Little Fish, on 15 November 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

there are studies that show non fluoridated areas have fewer dental problems, interestingly one of the studies used to promote fluoridation showed the number of dental carries was lower in fluoridated areas, what you weren't told was that in those fluoridated areas people had fewer teeth because they had rotted and were pulled.

CITATION please. Little Fish, I'm getting mighty sick of you pulling this stuff out of thin air, and then when you finally provide cites, we find out that you are either citing non-peer reviewed studies, or simply twisting the results and misreporting the conclusions.

Quote

the study I already linked is a review of 25 seperate published studies, you must have missed it.

Actually, those 27 other studies may have been published.. but were they peer-reviewed?  Plus, that study AS I ALREADY POINTED OUT, does NOT support your wild handwaving - it just suggests that there may be an effect, but more research was required BECAUSE the studies were not comprehensive enough and numerous other factors could be responsible for what was a very mild statistical effect..

Quote

maybe you don't understand poisoning

Well, you clearly don't understand proper methodologies and how to read conclusions without adding your own spin..

Quote

the study I gave you is evidence that fluoridation damages your intelligence because your brain is poisoned.

It does not give evidence of that.  Repeating your misinterpretation does not make for a good look.

Little Fish - I CHALLENGE YOU to simply post the compete, unedited conclusion of the study you refer to, in its entirety here.  If you won't, I will.  Then explain how and WHY you have 'embellished' it, and left out all the provisos.

Quote

Fluoride bioaccumulates in the bone and teeth where it rots the bone over time

More misinformation - that only happens when too much is ingested (quite rare, esp in developed countries).  At 'normal' levels, fluoride strengthens teeth and bones - and of course that is where it accumulates.  BTW, proving it accumulates in, say, the brain would be a required step to show any link to neurological effects.  Feel free to cite any studies showing that..  In fact, LF, do a little research - where, in all the soft tissues of the body, is the LEAST fluoride found?  I'll give you a hint - you won't want to come back and tell us the answer to that one...  

Quote

.. leading to bone cancer and brittle bones and more chance of fractures because it poisons your bones.

Bone cancer?  Do CITE this claim and we'll look at the full context, shall we?  Don't get me wrong, I agree that too much fluoride is harmful.  But so is too little.

Quote

doctors used to advertise cigarettes on tv.

They also came up with cures for many ailments, identified what caused scurvy.. all by using PROPER methodologies over time.  Do name any human endeavour where we don't sometimes get stuff wrong.  Thing is, if you want to play the emotional card and suggest this is the next thalidomide, where's your evidence?  That study..? the one that doesn't say what you desperately wish it did?

Put simply, Fluoride is beneficial (indeed necessary) for healthy teeth.  Too much fluoride - just like too much of many, many things that are necessary for our survival - can indeed be harmful, so it is worthwhile to try to work out the best possible range of ingestion.  And yes, that best range of ingestion is both narrow and debatable - we need more research.

But do I see folks like LF sensibly debating the amount and how we could better work out how much should be ingested and what might be the best method, if not via drinking water?  Nope, just one long tirade against ebil gubmints, misleading claims of deliberate poisoning, and a hideous eagerness to misrepresent what research is being done.

To cover both sides of the debate, I'd like to quote some text from a report from the World Health Organisation's International Programme for Chemical Safety.  Note the bolded paragraph, in which it points out how difficult it is to determine optimum or actual intake, and suggests that the best guide to excessive fluoride intake is actually skeletal fluorosis - and countries that have had fluoridation in place for long periods do NOT show any signs of increased skeletal fluorosis.  This suggests that it may not be fluoridation of the water supply that is a problem, but rather all the *other* fluoride-ridden stuff we put on our teeth like toothpastes, whitening treatments, mouthwashes, etc.

Quote

... 10. Conclusion

All organisms are exposed to fluoride released from natural sources and/or by human activities.  Fluoride can help prevent cavities, but at high intakes it can harm teeth development (dental fluorosis) and at higher intakes still, weaken and deform bones (skeletal fluorosis). There is a narrow range between intakes which are beneficial and those which begin to be detrimental.

When drinking water is artificially fluoridated, the "optimum" level of fluoride, associated with the maximum level of dental caries protection and minimum level of dental fluorosis, is considered to be approximately 1 mg/litre. Although there has been an increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis over the past 30 to 40 years, it has generally been attributed to the widespread increased intake of fluoride from sources other than drinking water, such as toothpastes, mouth rinses, fluoride supplements, fluoridated salt or milk, as well as locally applied dental gels, solutions and varnishes.

Effects on the bone, such as skeletal fluorosis and fracture, are considered to be the most relevant outcomes in assessing the adverse effects of long-term exposure of humans to fluoride.  In areas of the world with high levels of fluoride naturally present in minerals and water, intake of fluoride from drinking water and foodstuffs is the primary cause for endemic skeletal fluorosis, a crippling disability that affects millions of people in various parts of Africa, China and India. In some regions, the indoor burning of fluoride-rich coal also serves as an important source of fluoride.

At total fluoride intakes of 14 mg/day, there is clear evidence of skeletal fluorosis and an increased risk of bone fractures; at total intake levels above about 6 mg fluoride/day the evidence is suggestive of an increased risk of effects on bone.  There is inadequate information for estimating total exposure to fluoride and the uptake into the body from different sources which limits the conclusions on dose response that can be drawn from studies on adverse effects. Excess exposure to fluoride in a form that can be absorbed by organisms poses a risk to aquatic and terrestrial environments.

There is a need to improve the knowledge available on the accumulation of fluoride in organisms and how this can be monitored and controlled.  The biological effects associated with different levels of fluoride exposure should be better characterised.

Edited by Chrlzs, 15 November 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Neognosis]

Quote

there are studies that show non fluoridated areas have fewer dental problems, interestingly one of the studies used to promote fluoridation showed the number of dental carries was lower in fluoridated areas, what you weren't told was that in those fluoridated areas people had fewer teeth because they had rotted and were pulled.

I'm gonna call baloney on that one.


But allow me to restate my position:

I think that, in modern american society, we don't NEED fluoride in our water any longer, with modern dental care, dental hygiene, and fluoridated toothpaste.

So, I would have no objection to it being removed, and I think it probably should be removed from public drinking water.

what I DISAGREE with is all the overblown, unsupported, alarmist nonsense coming from the anti-flouride extremists. When you overstate a case to the point of absurdity, and even a cursory look around you reveals that what you are saying cannot possibly be true, you lose a lot of credibility.

Edited by Neognosis, 15 November 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[Rafterman]

Coffey, on 05 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

He just says the exact thing that the video and others says is a lie. It's a link to a site specifically for skeptics. Also you mention Texas? The most patriotic and susceptible state in the US to the government?! Doesn't really help your argument. LOL

Well if you want to just live in your little conspiracy world, then fine.  No skin off my teeth.

But when you're interested in really educating yourself and understanding the science and facts behind fluoridation, let us know.

[Coffey]

Rafterman, on 15 November 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Well if you want to just live in your little conspiracy world, then fine.  No skin off my teeth.

But when you're interested in really educating yourself and understanding the science and facts behind fluoridation, let us know.

Conspiracy world? lol Typical anti conspiracy comment. Make the other perosn out to be a conspiracy nut...

I've read lots on it, from both sides. Why would they force it upon school children? That doesn't fit with what you say.

Sorry I don't have time to discuss things with you, I need to go and post threads on reptoids/reptillians cause I'm a conspiracy nut.   



Dissclaimer: I don't beleive in reptoids or reptillians.

Edited by Coffey, 15 November 2012 - 03:55 PM.

[Diablo Blanco]

Fluoride was a common ingredient in rat poison.Since the 1800s, fluoride has been a key component in rat poison and insecticides. When mixed into grain or other food, rats will readily consume the poison and die. This method was deemed to be preferable to other poisonous compounds because it was less hazardous to the humans and livestock that might accidentally ingest it. The use of fluoride in rat poison has declined over the years, replaced by blood-thinning compounds that were deemed to be safer and more effective. http://www.ehow.com/...rat-poison.html

I think I will stick to drinking distilled water and visiting the dentist on a regular basis instead of drinking tap water with flouride in it which was once used to kill rats.

By the way, don't medical researchers still use rats and mice for testing drugs effects on humans?

[Neognosis]

I'm a long distance light weight backpacker. We use water purification tablets that are OXYGEN. They hyper-oxygenate the water and this kills most of the bacteria and viruses.


So, I'm going to quit breathing oxygen, which has been used to kill pathogens since the early 1980's.

[Diablo Blanco]

Neognosis, on 15 November 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I'm a long distance light weight backpacker. We use water purification tablets that are OXYGEN. They hyper-oxygenate the water and this kills most of the bacteria and viruses.


So, I'm going to quit breathing oxygen, which has been used to kill pathogens since the early 1980's.

So we need flouride to survive? Your comment has to be the most asinine on this thread thus far.

[Coffey]

Neognosis, on 15 November 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I'm a long distance light weight backpacker. We use water purification tablets that are OXYGEN. They hyper-oxygenate the water and this kills most of the bacteria and viruses.


So, I'm going to quit breathing oxygen, which has been used to kill pathogens since the early 1980's.

As Hazrus said they test other things on rats that are for human use/consumption. So this being lethal for rats says a lot. What you said is not the same at all! LOL

[Chrlzs]

Hazrus, on 15 November 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

The use of fluoride in rat poison has declined over the years, replaced by blood-thinning compounds that were deemed to be safer and more effective.

A few simple questions for you.

1. How MUCH fluoride was used in the rat poison?
2. Was Warfarin the main replacement for fluoride?
3. Have you ever been prescribed Warfarin?  (I have)
and
4. Do you understand the point of those questions?

Do you really think that things that *can* kill should never be ingested?  I'd suggest that you now avoid ingesting anything, because EVERY thing you ingest can be lethal if taken in the wrong quantities.  In the simplistic world that you wish to present, devoid of any thought, then *surely* this means nothing is safe.

The fact that this sort of scare-mongering garbage is cherry picked and presented as 'reasoning', tells you much about the mindset involved.  Says a lot, indeed..

[Cybele]

Little Fish, on 15 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

even your own citation says "In cases of high exposure levels or with renal deficiencies (Public Health Service, 1991) fluoride will increase in soft tissues somewhat in proportion to intake." that's a reason alone not to force it on the public.

your quote also falsely implies that Fluoride is a dietary essential trace element, it isn't.

Fluoride levels in drinking water are not considered "high" by any means and, as it says in my quote, low levels of fluoride will not normally bioaccumulate over time in soft tissues.

Renal failure and insufficiency can lead to all sorts of imbalances and inabilities to excrete toxic, non-toxic, and essential minerals from the blood--hence the need for dialysis. I'd imagine that for a person with kidney disease, monitoring for a slight accumulation of fluoride would not be the top priority of their doctors.

http://www.nlm.nih.g...icle/000471.htm

[Cybele]

Hazrus, on 15 November 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

So we need flouride to survive? Your comment has to be the most asinine on this thread thus far.

No.

Cybele, on 14 November 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

The dose makes the poison.

Neognosis, on 15 November 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

They hyper-oxygenate the water and this kills most of the bacteria and viruses.

oxygen toxicity: http://en.wikipedia....Oxygen_toxicity

Neognosis, on 15 November 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I think that, in modern american society, we don't NEED fluoride in our water any longer, with modern dental care, dental hygiene, and fluoridated toothpaste.

So, I would have no objection to it being removed, and I think it probably should be removed from public drinking water.

I think most of Europe no longer fluoridates their public drinking water supplies, as most people can get sufficient levels through toothpaste and dental checkups. However, in the U.S. water fluoridation is implemented as a public health measure due to greater socio-economic disparities. The very poor are less likely to use toothpaste or to be able to go to the dentist.

Water fluoridation is especially beneficial for communities of low socioeconomic status (18). These communities have a disproportionate burden of dental caries and have less access than higher income communities to dental-care services and other sources of fluoride. Water fluoridation may help reduce such dental health disparities.

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm4841a1.htm

Edited by Cybele, 16 November 2012 - 03:04 AM.

[psyche101]

Little Fish, on 14 November 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

the difference is that fluoridation can be stopped just by figuratively turning a tap off. it costs nothing to do, in fact there would be a financial benefit for most people in stopping it. the science is prima facie that it causes a reduction in IQ in children. even if you are not a child and only care about yourself, those children will be the ones that support you and run things in the future.

Those studies are based on Chinese instances where not only fluoride, but many other toxins are present. The link is a long way form justified. As many toxins were present, all of them have to be considered a possible culprit. Thusly fluoride by default must be included.

That's the link. Not all that much to take to the bank from what I see.

[psyche101]

Hazrus, on 15 November 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Fluoride was a common ingredient in rat poison.Since the 1800s, fluoride has been a key component in rat poison and insecticides. When mixed into grain or other food, rats will readily consume the poison and die. This method was deemed to be preferable to other poisonous compounds because it was less hazardous to the humans and livestock that might accidentally ingest it. The use of fluoride in rat poison has declined over the years, replaced by blood-thinning compounds that were deemed to be safer and more effective. http://www.ehow.com/...rat-poison.html

I think I will stick to drinking distilled water and visiting the dentist on a regular basis instead of drinking tap water with flouride in it which was once used to kill rats.

By the way, don't medical researchers still use rats and mice for testing drugs effects on humans?

From that link:

Quote

History

• Scientists discovered that residents of areas with naturally occurring fluoride levels in the drinking water of one part per million had fewer cavities than those living in places without naturally occurring fluoride. This discovery in the 1940s led to the fluoridation of municipal water systems across the country. In 1945, Grand Rapids Michigan became the first city to begin fluoridating the municipal water supply.
  In 1948, the Eastman Kodak Company acquired the last patent for rights to a hydrolyzed fluoride formula to be used as a rat poison and insecticide. At that time, the marketplace was turning to the use of the blood thinner warfarin as a safer and more effective way to eradicate vermin

and

Quote

In rat poison, the amount of fluoride content varied as different manufacturers developed their own proprietary formulas. In general, the products contained far more fluoride than necessary to induce death.

Fluoride In Dental Care

• The most commonly manufactured form is sodium fluoride, a toothpaste and municipal water additive used to minimize the impact of tooth decay. According to the American Dental Association, the introduction of small quantities of sodium fluoride into the diet has led to a decrease in the number and size of cavities in children since it has been in general use by the public. Municipal water fluoridation is hailed as one of the greatest achievements in public health during the 20th century by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It sounds like unless you are a rat that has eaten a bucketload of Fluoride, you will be just fine.


Did you know that drinking too much water will kill you? Time to give water away?


If we did everything the alarmists tell us too, we would be eating lettuce leaves and sucking on ice cubes. But only organic lettuce and distilled water ice

[psyche101]

Coffey, on 15 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Why would they force it upon school children? That doesn't fit with what you say.

Only you conspiracy nuts have a problem with it though

If the majority of people are in favour, it is not being forced.

[psyche101]

Neognosis, on 15 November 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I'm gonna call baloney on that one.


But allow me to restate my position:

I think that, in modern american society, we don't NEED fluoride in our water any longer, with modern dental care, dental hygiene, and fluoridated toothpaste.

So, I would have no objection to it being removed, and I think it probably should be removed from public drinking water.

what I DISAGREE with is all the overblown, unsupported, alarmist nonsense coming from the anti-flouride extremists. When you overstate a case to the point of absurdity, and even a cursory look around you reveals that what you are saying cannot possibly be true, you lose a lot of credibility.

I call shenanigans as well, however, I think there are enough irresponsible parents out there to warrant a fluoride supply. If some pair of hippies want to deny their children health benefits, their children should not have to suffer for it. Everything else I agree with. I see it a bit like those ignorant people who refuse to vaccinate their children, and then send them to a public school.