Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Fluoridating our Drinking Water

338 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Malaria_Kidd

Brother Yamato,

I say "Yes Sir!" to all of your paragraphs, above & two posts upwards, on the + & - of F. The negatives out weigh the positives on drinking F for strong teeth. Our small town's annual "tap water report" always ends with F's ppm being added for "strong teeth". With conservative radio hosts mentioning U.S. citizens loosing liberties daily. This toxic additive to "some" municipalities drinking water, resulted in 1 freedom of choice being lost long ago, pertaining to a pure H20 issue that may never be resolved nation wide!

Low ppms of chlorine has basically kept us alive when added to our water tested monthly in the big city down South. As a past fire district chief I helped flush over 60 fire hydrants semi annually. When the water first comes up the color of the dead bacteria is as black as swamp water and it smells just as bad! But the F could be shortening lives via the University of Kent's findings and to add hardening of the arteries too! I drive 7 miles to get sand ground water from the well that feeds fire district station 2. We don't drink their kool aid! :passifier:

MK hopefully fluoride free! :yes:

P.S. to Yamato,

Sometime in the near future I would like to read several of your paragraphs to our town board.

Edited by Malaria_Kidd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Rafterman

Iodine is produced by redox reactions from its typically oxidized states or the anion iodide.

Rafterman, you're misleading people too by adding a specific subject ("the human body") to the author's statement. While I agree with you that yes, it could have been better written and it can lead us to drawing false conclusions, nothing was specified about how it was produced. That was an assumption on your part. If the studies show that with diets remaining equal the fluoride was the trick that turned the data over, then that's good enough for me.

I trust that University of Kent is free from tinfoil hat wearing?

No, not exactly. The article's author is pretty clear, again: "But previous studies have found that it inhibits the production of iodine, which is essential for a healthy thyroid.

Since the body does not produce iodine - hence why some have iodine deficiency - it has to come from our diet or from supplements. If you know of another method, please share it.

So the author is either wrong or what she meant to say was "it inhibits how the body metabolizes iodine" - either way, it doesn't bode well for her abilities as a science reporter and, frankly, calls into question her interpretation of the study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

No, not exactly. The article's author is pretty clear, again: "But previous studies have found that it inhibits the production of iodine, which is essential for a healthy thyroid.

Since the body does not produce iodine - hence why some have iodine deficiency - it has to come from our diet or from supplements. If you know of another method, please share it.

So the author is either wrong or what she meant to say was "it inhibits how the body metabolizes iodine" - either way, it doesn't bode well for her abilities as a science reporter and, frankly, calls into question her interpretation of the study.

Well if you have another interpretation of the study, I'm all for it. If we don't accept one interpretation of this study and its results, we can usually find others to either confirm it, or deny it.

But no, the author is not either wrong, or else meaning to say what you can think of to say. The intricacies of this chemical cause-and-effect are unknown to us, and we can only speculate.

If you don't like one interpretation, find another one that's written more to your fancy. Here's one from the University of Kent itself:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/4137/stop-water-fluoridation-says-public-health-expert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Well if you have another interpretation of the study, I'm all for it. If we don't accept one interpretation of this study and its results, we can usually find others to either confirm it, or deny it.

But no, the author is not either wrong, or else meaning to say what you can think of to say. The intricacies of this chemical cause-and-effect are unknown to us, and we can only speculate.

If you don't like one interpretation, find another one that's written more to your fancy. Here's one from the University of Kent itself:

http://www.kent.ac.u...c-health-expert

Being a newly published study, we will have to wait a bit for reaction to the findings. Again, as was stated in the original article, this is an outlier when it comes to fluoride research. Not to mention, Peckham's own review of the study is as follows:

"Professor Peckham said that research was ‘observational’, so no definitive conclusions should be drawn about cause and effect. He also emphasised that the researchers were not able to take account of other sources of fluoride, often found in dental products and food and drink."

There's also this little note from the end of the research report itself (page 6):

"Competing interests SP (Stephen Peckham) was involved in a campaign in Southampton (UK) to prevent the fluoridation of drinking water supplies."

Also interesting is this little ditty I found about Professor Peckham which describes him as an anti-fluoridation activist campaigner:

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/2015/02/24/uk-fluoride-debate-fueled-by-anti-fluoridation-scientist/

So clearly there is enough to here to bring into question the findings. But that's what great about good science, if the findings are found to be valid and similar studies come to the same conclusion in other parts of the world, we as a society will move away from fluoridating our water supplies.

Can the anti-fluoridation campaigners say the same thing if their position is shown to be not supported by the science? In my experience, no.

Regarding the statement from the original article, The journalist was indeed either incorrect or misstated what she was trying to say. There's no other way to interpret it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Being a newly published study, we will have to wait a bit for reaction to the findings. Again, as was stated in the original article, this is an outlier when it comes to fluoride research. Not to mention, Peckham's own review of the study is as follows:

"Professor Peckham said that research was ‘observational’, so no definitive conclusions should be drawn about cause and effect. He also emphasised that the researchers were not able to take account of other sources of fluoride, often found in dental products and food and drink."

There's also this little note from the end of the research report itself (page 6):

"Competing interests SP (Stephen Peckham) was involved in a campaign in Southampton (UK) to prevent the fluoridation of drinking water supplies."

Also interesting is this little ditty I found about Professor Peckham which describes him as an anti-fluoridation activist campaigner:

http://www.breitbart...tion-scientist/

So clearly there is enough to here to bring into question the findings. But that's what great about good science, if the findings are found to be valid and similar studies come to the same conclusion in other parts of the world, we as a society will move away from fluoridating our water supplies.

Can the anti-fluoridation campaigners say the same thing if their position is shown to be not supported by the science? In my experience, no.

Regarding the statement from the original article, The journalist was indeed either incorrect or misstated what she was trying to say. There's no other way to interpret it.

Yes there is another way to interpret it, that's what I just did.

Boggling anymore about one author who wrote one article with one sentence in it that you don't like isn't going to be productive.

What if the water wasn't fluoridated yet? Would you be jumping out of your chair getting it so?

You drag a right wing political website into this and talk to me about "good science"? Get outta here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I can't compare the counties in the US like I'd like, but I can compare countries in the world. The only reason for fluoridating water in the first place falls flat on its face when data sets comparing F water with NF water have the same precipitous decline in tooth decay. It's graphically obvious that this conclusion that fluoridated water is what's making the difference isn't controlling for other variables. "Good science". Oh I know, WHO is some left wing conspiracy group too.

who_data01.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I can't compare the counties in the US like I'd like, but I can compare countries in the world. The only reason for fluoridating water in the first place falls flat on its face when data sets comparing F water with NF water have the same precipitous decline in tooth decay. It's graphically obvious that this conclusion that fluoridated water is what's making the difference isn't controlling for other variables. "Good science". Oh I know, WHO is some left wing conspiracy group too.

I've highlighted some rather important words, there..... Yamato, do you think that graph unequivocally, directly supports your beliefs? Read you own words VERY carefully before you answer.

Have you worked in the sciences and done any serious analysis of this type of thing, ie measuring something that is affected by a LOT of variables in a very complex environment?

Do you really feel qualified to make these statements definitively? If so, why are you not working in the field, writing reports for Nature, etc?

As for me, I can humbly report that yes, I have been involved - admittedly somewhat on the periphery and in the somewhat unrelated field of marine biology (including topics like food webs, identifying key species, looking at complex and chaotic systems inc effects of salinity and trace elements on species health, etc etc.... ) Now that has no direct relationship to fluoridation, but if I learnt nothing else, it was that googling up graphs and stats and then making proclamations (aka wild-ass-guesses) is a rather dangerous practice. If you are not already an expert in the field who understands ALL of the likely factors involved in causing some 'trend' (as well as the methodologies used in collecting/collating the data, etc) and without doing all of the requisite homework and speaking to other acknowledged experts in the field - well, the chances of a correct guess are rather low...

Same applies to both sides, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I've highlighted some rather important words, there..... Yamato, do you think that graph unequivocally, directly supports your beliefs? Read you own words VERY carefully before you answer.

Have you worked in the sciences and done any serious analysis of this type of thing, ie measuring something that is affected by a LOT of variables in a very complex environment?

Do you really feel qualified to make these statements definitively? If so, why are you not working in the field, writing reports for Nature, etc?

As for me, I can humbly report that yes, I have been involved - admittedly somewhat on the periphery and in the somewhat unrelated field of marine biology (including topics like food webs, identifying key species, looking at complex and chaotic systems inc effects of salinity and trace elements on species health, etc etc.... ) Now that has no direct relationship to fluoridation, but if I learnt nothing else, it was that googling up graphs and stats and then making proclamations (aka wild-ass-guesses) is a rather dangerous practice. If you are not already an expert in the field who understands ALL of the likely factors involved in causing some 'trend' (as well as the methodologies used in collecting/collating the data, etc) and without doing all of the requisite homework and speaking to other acknowledged experts in the field - well, the chances of a correct guess are rather low...

Same applies to both sides, btw.

Unequivocally, definitively? No, we need way more data than we have now (I keep saying this).

Can I conclude that tooth decay is way down over time with or without fluoridation? Yes, that's exactly what that data shows, that is one conclusion that we should be able to make. I'm not the one concluding that I know what variable is the most responsible. It hasn't been separated out sufficiently, it hasn't been studied enough.

Here again is another attempted ball scratching contest and I'm still not interested. I'm someone as far as you're concerned that has no expertise, but I'm still someone who trusts data sets from the WHO rather than just listen to you with no data sets of your own to show otherwise.

It should be enough to make you question your own conclusions about knowing what variable is responsible for less tooth decay when you see countries without the variable you trust in getting the same results.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

You said it yourself - you have NO IDEA what the variables are that have caused this. So why post such a graph and then have the hide to tell me off for simply advising caution to BOTH SIDES????

This waffling is a waste of time - I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You said it yourself - you have NO IDEA what the variables are that have caused this. So why post such a graph and then have the hide to tell me off for simply advising caution to BOTH SIDES????

This waffling is a waste of time - I'm out.

Yes I say that myself, that I have no idea how to weight any of these variables against each other because the data is not there. I posted the graph because the graph ruins the argument for people like you who keep trying to make other people believe that it's the fluoridated water that deserves the credit for healthier teeth. Obviously tooth decay has become much less of a problem through time including in areas without fluoridated water. The chart roundly dispels your rumor that you can't rely on dental hygiene and dentists alone, and must drink F water too.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

This household does only reverse osmosis water. No depression amoung us. No diabetes here. Our livers are functioning pretty good these days. I may be short on serum minerals but that can be supplemented.

My question, as always, is why do they abstract the teeth from the effects of fluoride on the rest of the body. It is my understanding that esophegeal cancer is on the upswing for some time now.

Of course, the esophague meets the fluoridated tap water head on. The poor disrespected liver processes it. The glorious and hard-working kidneys excrete it. The tender, irreplaceable aveoli in the lungs meeting it full on when you breathe in the shower, thru water vapors. If fluoride hardens the already hardest substance in the body, tooth enamel, what does it do to those tender, fragile tissues of the little aveoli that take a daily application of it in the shower?

Edited by regeneratia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

This household does only reverse osmosis water. No depression amoung us. No diabetes here. Our livers are functioning pretty good these days. I may be short on serum minerals but that can be supplemented.

As pointed out numerous times (and clearly this very basic fact was completely new to some posters here).. Pure water without any 'salt' or mineral content is not good for the body. For almost the same reason that saltwater fish will die in fresh water.. And anecdotal evidence about depression and alleged liver health such as that which takes no account of the rest of your diet, is just as useless information as any posted on this thread to date.

]My question, as always, is why do they abstract the teeth from the effects of fluoride on the rest of the body.[/b]

That is a loaded question and makes numerous assumptions. Just like when did YOU stop beating your partner?? First, who are 'they', and what evidence do you have for them 'abstracting the teeth'. And I have to ask - in your professional opinion, should the human body have ANY fluoride intake, and if so, why and how much.

It is my understanding that esophegeal cancer is on the upswing for some time now.

Your 'understandings', opinions or anecdotes are just as worthless as mine - it is what you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that counts. So CITE this claim. And then we will look at the actual numbers and factors that are important in terms of that cancer, and also compare it to the cost (in terms of deaths and dollars) of complications from dental caries, shall we..?

Of course, the esophague meets the fluoridated tap water head on. The poor disrespected liver processes it. The glorious and hard-working kidneys excrete it. The tender, irreplaceable aveoli in the lungs meeting it full on when you breathe in the shower, thru water vapors. If fluoride hardens the already hardest substance in the body, tooth enamel, what does it do to those tender, fragile tissues of the little aveoli that take a daily application of it in the shower?

Dramatic words and poetic use of adjectives is much easier than presenting FACTS, isn't it..? Your comments in the Location field (?) of your personal details says it all really. "All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do." - yes, that's how regen rolls.

And she doesn't see any problem with that, while loudly proclaiming her opinions as facts...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker

I can't compare the counties in the US like I'd like, but I can compare countries in the world. The only reason for fluoridating water in the first place falls flat on its face when data sets comparing F water with NF water have the same precipitous decline in tooth decay. It's graphically obvious that this conclusion that fluoridated water is what's making the difference isn't controlling for other variables. "Good science". Oh I know, WHO is some left wing conspiracy group too.

who_data01.jpg

Like it says at the bottom of Yam's chart, this is backed up by the WHO (World Health Organization). So I don't expect it is very bias. Thus we can conclude that probably some other variable is at work here. Probably education and greater availability of dental treatment to young kids, worldwide. I'm starting to think that fluoridated water should remain in the 20th century with Unions and MTV.

http://sdsdw.org/fluoride-facts/world-health-organization-data-tooth-decay-trends/

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 4

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.