Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
regeneratia

Fluoridegate

188 posts in this topic

Fluoridegate: Fluoride Spots On Teeth The Tip Of The Iceberg

13 Jan 2011

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213599.php

Decades of assurances that consuming fluoride in drinking water is a safe and an effective way to prevent cavities are being called into question as a jarring Fluoridegate controversy erupts across the nation.

A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements.

arrow3.gifRead more...

FLUORIDE CAUSES ADHD IN CHILDREN.

The science is there to back it up. There is also spun and twisted science that tears down the good, solid science that backs it up.

It has been about five years since my family drank water readily from the tap.

One day, long ago, I looked at my child's teeth. They were gray. I told his pediatrician, who played it off. I told his dentist, who played it off.

I have known for a long time, longer than I have been a mother, that fluorosis puts holes in the enamel of children's teeth, totally reversing the good that is intended and creating a prime environment for cavities.

So I TOOK action myself. I am tired of relying on "authority figures" who lie to us, who neglect us, like the pediatrician and dentist, the dental industry and the CDC.

We bought a water cooler and drink reverse osmosis water (now too having instant hot water for my teas). We buy toothpaste that does not have fluoride.

My child's teeth are pure white and without cavities so far.

Empower yourself!!

Have you acted on this information for your family?

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We collect rainwater to avoid it.

The distressing fact is that even bathing in fluoridated water exposes you to high levels through skin absorbtion.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We collect rainwater to avoid it.

The distressing fact is that even bathing in fluoridated water exposes you to high levels through skin absorbtion.

Br Cornelius

I agree with that too.

Fluoride is a toxin, is on the list of carcinogens.

The daily application of fluoridated water vapors on the epithelial cells in your lungs from fluoridated showers has got to contribute to lung disease. All the while, all the diseases are blamed on smoking, with study after study NOT accounting for the influence of fluoridated vapors bathing the lungs on a daily basis.

Then there is the question of what it does to the gastrointentional tract when fluoridated water is drank daily, from the stomach to the colon, and most certainly at the point of the liver and kidneys.

If fluoride hardens tooth enamel, the hardest substance in the body, what exactly is the effect of fluoride on soft, permeable tissues involved in consuming it, digesting it, biologically filtering it and bathing in it?

The questing mind would seek to find those answers.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeppers, there will be lots of interest in this issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/13/13greenwire-epa-moves-on-fluoride-draw-warning-from-sen-in-23356.html?pagewanted=print

January 13, 2011

EPA Moves on Fluoride Draw Warning From Sen. Inhofe

By ELANA SCHOR of Greenwire

U.S. EPA's bid to phase out a fluoride-based pesticide is sparking the first stirrings of a political battle, as Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) warned the agency yesterday that its move "could create unintended consequences for public health, food safety, and the economy."

EPA this week proposed a gradual ban on food with traces of sulfuryl fluoride -- a fumigant used on cocoa, grains, nuts and other edibles -- to complement the rollout of new curbs on fluoride in drinking water aimed at protecting children's health.

But in a letter to the agency, Inhofe appears skeptical of the science behind its moves -- particularly the proposed limit on the pesticide, which EPA says represents "a tiny fraction" of children's aggregate exposure to fluoride.

=====================

What we are seeing in an effort by Inhofe to reduce nation-wide litagation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...I don't know, howabout not putting it in ANYTHING AT ALL?! Really glad I hate tap water and have refused to drink it all my life. Maybe that's my body trying to tell me something...It causes adhd in kids, and we have medication to control adhd, nice.

Edited by SpiderCyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...I don't know, howabout not putting it in ANYTHING AT ALL?! Really glad I hate tap water and have refused to drink it all my life. Maybe that's my body trying to tell me something...It causes adhd in kids, and we have medication to control adhd, nice.

What is really interesting is that right at the start of fluoridation, the large alumina smelting concerns were been faced with huge class action law suits concerning their pollution by fluoride gases of surrounding farm lands, with the resulting death of many cattle. They had to start scrubbing their stacks, but were left with a toxic residue which they had then to pay large sums to dispose of. There are documented letters from the company heads of those Alumina concerns to the health authorities suggesting that it would be a great idea to start using their toxic waste as a water additive to improve the teeth of our children. Simple corrupt business practice seems the most likely cause of this whole fluoride travesty.

I once attempted to find verification of the claim that the Nazi's used fluoride in the ghetto's to pacify the resident, and that this was the underlying reason why it had been adopted as a form of population control. There is no evidence that this actually took place and I find it highly unlikely that the Nazi's would not have rigorously documented this practice and that this body of work would not be traceable (despite many trying to trace it). On the basis of this I came to the conclusion that it was not part of some grand conspiracy to control the masses, which is common currency in the conspiracy world. I actually like to see some compelling evidence before I jump to such a conclusion these days.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really interesting is that right at the start of fluoridation, the large alumina smelting concerns were been faced with huge class action law suits concerning their pollution by fluoride gases of surrounding farm lands, with the resulting death of many cattle. They had to start scrubbing their stacks, but were left with a toxic residue which they had then to pay large sums to dispose of. There are documented letters from the company heads of those Alumina concerns to the health authorities suggesting that it would be a great idea to start using their toxic waste as a water additive to improve the teeth of our children. Simple corrupt business practice seems the most likely cause of this whole fluoride travesty.

I once attempted to find verification of the claim that the Nazi's used fluoride in the ghetto's to pacify the resident, and that this was the underlying reason why it had been adopted as a form of population control. There is no evidence that this actually took place and I find it highly unlikely that the Nazi's would not have rigorously documented this practice and that this body of work would not be traceable (despite many trying to trace it). On the basis of this I came to the conclusion that it was not part of some grand conspiracy to control the masses, which is common currency in the conspiracy world. I actually like to see some compelling evidence before I jump to such a conclusion these days.

Br Cornelius

This is the first I've actually heard of this, toxic metals are more my field of interest, I could tell you things that would make your hair stand on end in terms of mercury and aluminum (I'm thinking those may also be a form of population control). I will definitely have to do some reading on this flouridation thing. I'm so signing up for Chelation Therapy now.

Edited by SpiderCyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really interesting is that right at the start of fluoridation, the large alumina smelting concerns were been faced with huge class action law suits concerning their pollution by fluoride gases of surrounding farm lands, with the resulting death of many cattle. They had to start scrubbing their stacks, but were left with a toxic residue which they had then to pay large sums to dispose of. There are documented letters from the company heads of those Alumina concerns to the health authorities suggesting that it would be a great idea to start using their toxic waste as a water additive to improve the teeth of our children. Simple corrupt business practice seems the most likely cause of this whole fluoride travesty.

I once attempted to find verification of the claim that the Nazi's used fluoride in the ghetto's to pacify the resident, and that this was the underlying reason why it had been adopted as a form of population control. There is no evidence that this actually took place and I find it highly unlikely that the Nazi's would not have rigorously documented this practice and that this body of work would not be traceable (despite many trying to trace it). On the basis of this I came to the conclusion that it was not part of some grand conspiracy to control the masses, which is common currency in the conspiracy world. I actually like to see some compelling evidence before I jump to such a conclusion these days.

Br Cornelius

There is a book that has that verification in it, and how to find to find that verification. THER FLUORIDE DECEPTION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first I've actually heard of this, toxic metals are more my field of interest, I could tell you things that would make your hair stand on end in terms of mercury and aluminum (I'm thinking those may also be a form of population control). I will definitely have to do some reading on this flouridation thing. I'm so signing up for Chelation Therapy now.

I am just juicing it, hoping that does the trick.

But you know, I DO NOT want to get old. I do not!

It is not a pretty picture for some.

What bothers me the most is how many lies from authorities and governments and corporations we are asked to swallow in period of a lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that too.

Fluoride is a toxin, is on the list of carcinogens.

The daily application of fluoridated water vapors on the epithelial cells in your lungs from fluoridated showers has got to contribute to lung disease. All the while, all the diseases are blamed on smoking, with study after study NOT accounting for the influence of fluoridated vapors bathing the lungs on a daily basis.

Then there is the question of what it does to the gastrointentional tract when fluoridated water is drank daily, from the stomach to the colon, and most certainly at the point of the liver and kidneys.

If fluoride hardens tooth enamel, the hardest substance in the body, what exactly is the effect of fluoride on soft, permeable tissues involved in consuming it, digesting it, biologically filtering it and bathing in it?

The questing mind would seek to find those answers.

That is a pretty broad brush Regeneratia.

We need to remember back to our chemistry classes. Just like sodium is an explosive white powder that dangerously reacts with oxygen and chlorine is a poisonous gas, when combined they make an inert salt: Sodium chloride (table salt)--"Fluorides" are no different.

Fluoride is the anion of fluorine, but as being used here "Fluoride" describes a class of molecules, not one thing, which has fluorine. Remember, just like the table salt, that when chemically bonded to another element or molecule this changes the properties of that element.

When your teeth form, enamel only gets "one chance". It is deposited by a type of cells called ameloblasts, which once they deposit the enamel are gone forever. It is important then for both children and pregnant mothers to be mindful of this (indeed lots of research is shows that inadequacies in diet during pregnancy can lead to major tooth problems later in life for the child) during developmental periods where tooth enamel is deposited. Fluoride is needed in hydroxyapatite crystallization and aids the body in remineralization of damaged enamel (not that you're making new enamel, only remineralizing that which is swept away--Which is why cavities don't "heal").

Just as we were discussing on the other topic (about Vitamin C) too much of anything, including your vitamins (and fluoride too) is a bad thing. And as I pointed out above, it also depends on how this element is bound up in a molecule which makes it dangerous or not. Similar to those against "mercury" in vaccines--Which never contained mercury, rather thimerosal which is not mercury, rather a molecule which happens to contain elemental mercury (not free, covalently bound). And how the body metabolizes a molecule is in large part, the ultimate say in its toxicity.

It would be nice if people who quickly get scared or upset about all these "chemicals" in our stuff realized this and thought back to those boring high school chemistry classes we all took and loved to hate :lol: If we banned everything with a dangerous element in it, then there wouldn't be anything left (including ourselves, we contain all sorts of nasty chemical compounds--Like peroxide radicals, yikes!)

Its probably also good to realize, for ones who may "argue" this or just be wondering, that our body has very few biochemical pathways that can liberate "free" elements from complex molecules.

For another example, manganese is a transition metal that in high doses (not really that high) or in certain forms can cause a disease very similar to Parkinson's. Yet, manganese is something we cannot live without. Really, you'll die with it. It is essential to human life as it vital in certain enzymatic reactions that don't work without it.

There are 7 macrominerals essential for human life; Calcium, Chloride, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Iron

Along with 12 trace elements required for human life (there is probably actually more than this); Boron, Cobalt, Chloride, Chromium, Copper, Fluoride, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Selenium, Zinc (iron graces our lists twice because of the different valancies it is found and used in)

And before anyone claims it, no I am not a stooge/mouthpiece/plant for "big government, corporations, pharma, <insert evil industry of choice here>", I'm merely pointing out that when we let our imagination run wild and step away from sound scientific evidence in favor of panic, well look at that whole Wakefield topic.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a pretty broad brush Regeneratia.

We need to remember back to our chemistry classes. Just like sodium is an explosive white powder that dangerously reacts with oxygen and chlorine is a poisonous gas, when combined they make an inert salt: Sodium chloride (table salt)--"Fluorides" are no different.

Fluoride is the anion of fluorine, but as being used here "Fluoride" describes a class of molecules, not one thing, which has fluorine. Remember, just like the table salt, that when chemically bonded to another element or molecule this changes the properties of that element.

When your teeth form, enamel only gets "one chance". It is deposited by a type of cells called ameloblasts, which once they deposit the enamel are gone forever. It is important then for both children and pregnant mothers to be mindful of this (indeed lots of research is shows that inadequacies in diet during pregnancy can lead to major tooth problems later in life for the child) during developmental periods where tooth enamel is deposited. Fluoride is needed in hydroxyapatite crystallization and aids the body in remineralization of damaged enamel (not that you're making new enamel, only remineralizing that which is swept away--Which is why cavities don't "heal").

Just as we were discussing on the other topic (about Vitamin C) too much of anything, including your vitamins (and fluoride too) is a bad thing. And as I pointed out above, it also depends on how this element is bound up in a molecule which makes it dangerous or not. Similar to those against "mercury" in vaccines--Which never contained mercury, rather thimerosal which is not mercury, rather a molecule which happens to contain elemental mercury (not free, covalently bound). And how the body metabolizes a molecule is in large part, the ultimate say in its toxicity.

It would be nice if people who quickly get scared or upset about all these "chemicals" in our stuff realized this and thought back to those boring high school chemistry classes we all took and loved to hate :lol: If we banned everything with a dangerous element in it, then there wouldn't be anything left (including ourselves, we contain all sorts of nasty chemical compounds--Like peroxide radicals, yikes!)

Its probably also good to realize, for ones who may "argue" this or just be wondering, that our body has very few biochemical pathways that can liberate "free" elements from complex molecules.

For another example, manganese is a transition metal that in high doses (not really that high) or in certain forms can cause a disease very similar to Parkinson's. Yet, manganese is something we cannot live without. Really, you'll die with it. It is essential to human life as it vital in certain enzymatic reactions that don't work without it.

There are 7 macrominerals essential for human life; Calcium, Chloride, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Iron

Along with 12 trace elements required for human life (there is probably actually more than this); Boron, Cobalt, Chloride, Chromium, Copper, Fluoride, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Selenium, Zinc (iron graces our lists twice because of the different valancies it is found and used in)

And before anyone claims it, no I am not a stooge/mouthpiece/plant for "big government, corporations, pharma, <insert evil industry of choice here>", I'm merely pointing out that when we let our imagination run wild and step away from sound scientific evidence in favor of panic, well look at that whole Wakefield topic.

Wow, whee, you rock. Nice little refresher on what I am not really sure I learned in Chemistry. My chemistry class was dumbed-down for nurses. Just wondering if I really learned anything at all with it, even tho the grades were good. But I did marry a very smart chemist. Will ask him what he thinks, while he does indeed avoid drinking the tap water like I do, and makes great effort to keep it from our son's oral consumption activities.

Just want to know what you think is broadly brushed in my post.

You know as well as I do how absorbent, fragile, and how close to the blood stream epithelial cells are. I simply do not think all the research on smoking should not eliminate the influence of daily washes with fluoridated water vapors. That particular influence would indeed have to be eliminated before any study on smoking's effect in the lungs would be exact. Taking it some further, wonder what fluoride-laden water vapors would do to a lung challenged by smoking. Hmmm!

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a pretty broad brush Regeneratia.

We need to remember back to our chemistry classes. Just like sodium is an explosive white powder that dangerously reacts with oxygen and chlorine is a poisonous gas, when combined they make an inert salt: Sodium chloride (table salt)--"Fluorides" are no different.

Fluoride is the anion of fluorine, but as being used here "Fluoride" describes a class of molecules, not one thing, which has fluorine. Remember, just like the table salt, that when chemically bonded to another element or molecule this changes the properties of that element.

When your teeth form, enamel only gets "one chance". It is deposited by a type of cells called ameloblasts, which once they deposit the enamel are gone forever. It is important then for both children and pregnant mothers to be mindful of this (indeed lots of research is shows that inadequacies in diet during pregnancy can lead to major tooth problems later in life for the child) during developmental periods where tooth enamel is deposited. Fluoride is needed in hydroxyapatite crystallization and aids the body in remineralization of damaged enamel (not that you're making new enamel, only remineralizing that which is swept away--Which is why cavities don't "heal").

Just as we were discussing on the other topic (about Vitamin C) too much of anything, including your vitamins (and fluoride too) is a bad thing. And as I pointed out above, it also depends on how this element is bound up in a molecule which makes it dangerous or not. Similar to those against "mercury" in vaccines--Which never contained mercury, rather thimerosal which is not mercury, rather a molecule which happens to contain elemental mercury (not free, covalently bound). And how the body metabolizes a molecule is in large part, the ultimate say in its toxicity.

It would be nice if people who quickly get scared or upset about all these "chemicals" in our stuff realized this and thought back to those boring high school chemistry classes we all took and loved to hate :lol: If we banned everything with a dangerous element in it, then there wouldn't be anything left (including ourselves, we contain all sorts of nasty chemical compounds--Like peroxide radicals, yikes!)

Its probably also good to realize, for ones who may "argue" this or just be wondering, that our body has very few biochemical pathways that can liberate "free" elements from complex molecules.

For another example, manganese is a transition metal that in high doses (not really that high) or in certain forms can cause a disease very similar to Parkinson's. Yet, manganese is something we cannot live without. Really, you'll die with it. It is essential to human life as it vital in certain enzymatic reactions that don't work without it.

There are 7 macrominerals essential for human life; Calcium, Chloride, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Iron

Along with 12 trace elements required for human life (there is probably actually more than this); Boron, Cobalt, Chloride, Chromium, Copper, Fluoride, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Selenium, Zinc (iron graces our lists twice because of the different valancies it is found and used in)

And before anyone claims it, no I am not a stooge/mouthpiece/plant for "big government, corporations, pharma, <insert evil industry of choice here>", I'm merely pointing out that when we let our imagination run wild and step away from sound scientific evidence in favor of panic, well look at that whole Wakefield topic.

So do you support fluoridating tap water?

Do you support drinking fluoride, consuming it, digesting it, filtering it, and eliminating it from the body, merely for it's topical use on teeth, while there are other, better ways to topically apply fluoride to the teeth?

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to remember back to our chemistry classes. Just like sodium is an explosive white powder that dangerously reacts with oxygen and chlorine is a poisonous gas, when combined they make an inert salt: Sodium chloride (table salt)--"Fluorides" are no different.

Coplastic, simply because salt is safe to injest does not mean we should assume every composite molecule is safe to injest. What people here are saying is that they dont agree with chemicals being added into our water, and neither do I. I dont like "forced medication" because I don't necessairly believe all the "goods" that come from it. I think people should be able to chose for themselves whether to injest it or not... and when I say they should chose for themselves, I mean that they should be presented with clear water to which they can add fluoride or purchase fluoridated water rather than being given fluoridated water and having to go through a hassel to get clear water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you support fluoridating tap water?

Do you support drinking fluoride, consuming it, digesting it, filtering it, and eliminating it from the body, merely for it's topical use on teeth, while there are other, better ways to topically apply fluoride to the teeth?

Yes, public health wise it is an easy and practical fix for a whole nation. Much as its easy for doctors to tell pregnant women to take folic acid rather than test all pregnant women for mutations in genes like dihydrofolate reductase.

Are there a small percentage of people it may not be beneficial too? Yes, possibly just as there is a small percentage of women that folate vitamins have adverse affects on.

In any sufficiently large and varied population, there are always going to be data-outliers which don't benefit from certain public health choices. The trick is to find a means to identify them early before harm could be done.

The evidence for safer, more available and more cost effective ways to ensure fluoride is adequately used to prevent dental caries is essentially non-existent. At current, in terms of public health, fluoridated water is the most effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coplastic, simply because salt is safe to injest does not mean we should assume every composite molecule is safe to injest.

Nor did I suggest that, that would be a strawman Stellar, you're better than that. The salt was an example for someone who might not be familiar with chemistry. Its easy for the names of chemicals to start sounding scary to people with little experience in chemistry or biology. Ever watch Penn and Teller?

Many of these "anti-chemical" and "organic movements" play on people's fears which is built upon a lack of understanding.

What people here are saying is that they dont agree with chemicals being added into our water, and neither do I. I dont like "forced medication" because I don't necessairly believe all the "goods" that come from it. I think people should be able to chose for themselves whether to injest it or not... and when I say they should chose for themselves, I mean that they should be presented with clear water to which they can add fluoride or purchase fluoridated water rather than being given fluoridated water and having to go through a hassel to get clear water.

As I pointed out above, it is a cost effective and safe public health option. There is lots of stuff in your water you may not want there--traces of many elements (unless you're sneaking some triple d water from the lab) are found in water.

If you are very concerned, many states the choice is left up to the county. If your county adds fluoride to the water you can see that here at the CDC's website, simply click on your state on the map and pick out where you live.

If you are really scared, I'd suggest moving to a new county.

Places that do add fluoride to water sources add around .20 mg/L. While looking at the Institute of medicine's TUL (tolerable upper limit) for fluoride it is 10 mg per day. By drinking lots of water you'd never come close to that. To get a single mg, you'd need to drink 5 L of water a day. If you are a normal American and you're drinking 5L of water a day, you should talk to your doctor (I mean, if you are moderately sedentary and drinking that much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, public health wise it is an easy and practical fix for a whole nation. Much as its easy for doctors to tell pregnant women to take folic acid rather than test all pregnant women for mutations in genes like dihydrofolate reductase.

Are there a small percentage of people it may not be beneficial too? Yes, possibly just as there is a small percentage of women that folate vitamins have adverse affects on.

In any sufficiently large and varied population, there are always going to be data-outliers which don't benefit from certain public health choices. The trick is to find a means to identify them early before harm could be done.

The evidence for safer, more available and more cost effective ways to ensure fluoride is adequately used to prevent dental caries is essentially non-existent. At current, in terms of public health, fluoridated water is the most effective.

It is not easy to put fluoride in the water. Years ago, before I bought the water-cooler, I tried to alert local officials at the city level that this was happening to my child. There was one man who could reduce the fluoride levels in tap water without calling public attention to it, and that was the ave. I was seeking. He said he really wished he could do it, reduce the levels, said they were already at the bottom levels possible, that the fluoride company he bought fluoride from had recently doubled the price of fluoride. He listened to me, and I left it to his judgements, for I didn't feel the necessity to bring this issue up to the public awareness if he could do the same thing from a side-angle. Did he do it, for public health interests and to save the city money? I don't know. I never followed up. But I can tell you I trusted him, which is hard to do regarding public officials.

Since the enamel depth levels are dependent on genetics and environment of the teeth, it stands to reason that it could be done more adequately and possibly cheaper at the public health level, rather than fluoridating all people because some people need it.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simply because salt is safe to injest does not mean we should assume every composite molecule is safe to injest. What people here are saying is that they dont agree with chemicals being added into our water, and neither do I. I dont like "forced medication" because I don't necessairly believe all the "goods" that come from it. I think people should be able to chose for themselves whether to injest it or not... and when I say they should chose for themselves, I mean that they should be presented with clear water to which they can add fluoride or purchase fluoridated water rather than being given fluoridated water and having to go through a hassel to get clear water.

well said.

everybody's body is different. we should never add drugs to the water supply, especially for something as trivial as tooth decay. if it added to the water there is simply no way to avoid it, compulsory mass medication is unethical. Sodium Fluoride is toxic, very toxic, and biocumulative in the body causing a whole host of problems in later life. Youtube Paul Connnet, EPA scientist of 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not easy to put fluoride in the water. Years ago, before I bought the water-cooler, I tried to alert local officials at the city level that this was happening to my child. There was one man who could reduce the fluoride levels in tap water without calling public attention to it, and that was the ave. I was seeking. He said he really wished he could do it, reduce the levels, said they were already at the bottom levels possible, that the fluoride company he bought fluoride from had recently doubled the price of fluoride. He listened to me, and I left it to his judgements, for I didn't feel the necessity to bring this issue up to the public awareness if he could do the same thing from a side-angle. Did he do it, for public health interests and to save the city money? I don't know. I never followed up. But I can tell you I trusted him, which is hard to do regarding public officials.

Since the enamel depth levels are dependent on genetics and environment of the teeth, it stands to reason that it could be done more adequately and possibly cheaper at the public health level, rather than fluoridating all people because some people need it.

I'm sorry, I'm really tired and I'm not following your story-Could you clarify it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor did I suggest that, that would be a strawman Stellar, you're better than that. The salt was an example for someone who might not be familiar with chemistry. Its easy for the names of chemicals to start sounding scary to people with little experience in chemistry or biology. Ever watch Penn and Teller?

Many of these "anti-chemical" and "organic movements" play on people's fears which is built upon a lack of understanding.

As I pointed out above, it is a cost effective and safe public health option. There is lots of stuff in your water you may not want there--traces of many elements (unless you're sneaking some triple d water from the lab) are found in water.

If you are very concerned, many states the choice is left up to the county. If your county adds fluoride to the water you can see that here at the CDC's website, simply click on your state on the map and pick out where you live.

If you are really scared, I'd suggest moving to a new county.

Places that do add fluoride to water sources add around .20 mg/L. While looking at the Institute of medicine's TUL (tolerable upper limit) for fluoride it is 10 mg per day. By drinking lots of water you'd never come close to that. To get a single mg, you'd need to drink 5 L of water a day. If you are a normal American and you're drinking 5L of water a day, you should talk to your doctor (I mean, if you are moderately sedentary and drinking that much).

I honestly do NOT believe that fluoridating the water is safe. There is solid research out there that tells us that it gives children ADHD. There is a lot of research out there on the health hazards of fluoridating tap water. All ya have to do is look, desire to know the truth, and remain objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I'm really tired and I'm not following your story-Could you clarify it?

Nah, maybe if you get some rest, and reread, ... if you care about this. I am tired too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do NOT believe that fluoridating the water is safe. There is solid research out there that tells us that it gives children ADHD. There is a lot of research out there on the health hazards of fluoridating tap water. All ya have to do is look, desire to know the truth, and remain objective.

I've looked at the research, both for and against with a medical schools resources to obtaining that research as well. We don't have much choice, nutrition and public health gets covered in your first set of case-clinical reasoning groups and teeth development, cavities etc (I know right? I was mean, what did I sign up for I don't want to be a dentist!) get covered extensively in histology and cell biology, micro-anatomy and gross anatomy.

Nah, maybe if you get some rest, and reread, ... if you care about this. I am tired too.

I meant a couple parts of your story, for instance here you say;

I tried to alert local officials at the city level that this was happening to my child.

That what was happening to your child?

Then you say;

one man who could reduce the fluoride levels in tap water without calling public attention to it, and that was the ave.

How? And what do you mean by he could reduce levels without "calling attention"?

Then later you say;

said they were already at the bottom levels possible

What do you mean by bottom levels? Virtually all water has trace fluoride in it, making "pure" H2O is neigh impossible (well not necessarily, its just insanely ridiculous and insanely expensive and drinking "pure" H2O wouldn't be that good for you anyway).

Then you said;

that the fluoride company he bought fluoride from had recently doubled the price of fluoride.

Which makes it sound as if he is adding fluoride, why does he need to buy it if he is trying to remove it?

See what I mean? Could you clarify those points?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor did I suggest that, that would be a strawman Stellar, you're better than that. The salt was an example for someone who might not be familiar with chemistry. Its easy for the names of chemicals to start sounding scary to people with little experience in chemistry or biology.

I see. I thought that was what you were suggesting... that since Sodium is dangerous but Salt is not, Fluoride (element) is dangerous but NaF is not. I think, when people are referring to "Fluorinated water" they are referring to the compound in water, and they believe that is dangerous... I dont think anyone here is basing their opinions on the element being dangerous.

As I pointed out above, it is a cost effective and safe public health option.

And as I pointed out, I don't necessarily trust the officials to tell me what is safe and what is not. They can say its safe all they want, but I've learnt in the past 23 years of my life that these "experts" in all areas are not as incorruptible and not all as competant and error-free as I'd like them to be.

If you are very concerned, many states the choice is left up to the county. If your county adds fluoride to the water you can see that here at the CDC's website, simply click on your state on the map and pick out where you live.

I don't live in the US.

While this whole "a little bit is ok" business may suit you, I see that this "little bit" has the potential to cause some damage to my body. Chances are it doesnt cause anything significant, perhaps, but I'd just rather not be force medicated.

Personally, I believe in medication when it is required. I am against today's "drugs are the answer to everything" mentality. I, personally, believe that all these pills and chemicals in todays society that we deem 'safe' may indeed have side effects that we do not realize, no matter how much some corporation/department says its safe. Do I have hard evidence of this? No. There have been cases when certain pills/chemicals were once though safe and then turned out to be dangerous though, and as such, I want to make the decisions as to whether to pollute my body with something someone tells me is "safe" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I also find it slightly fishy that the government seems to purposely fluoridate our water "for our benifit"... yet avoids purposely adding vitamins to it, or anything else "medicinal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I also find it slightly fishy that the government seems to purposely fluoridate our water "for our benifit"... yet avoids purposely adding vitamins to it, or anything else "medicinal".

Agreed, dumping all the flouride into water supplys is probably cheaper than properly disposing of it. I'd be all for mineral water though! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, dumping all the flouride into water supplys is probably cheaper than properly disposing of it. I'd be all for mineral water though!

Well, there's all sorts of minerals in tap water already, depending on what water source you're drinking from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.