Fluoride in water conspiracy

[stereologist]

Ernest Newbrun DMD, PhD, Systemic Benefits of Fluoride and Fluoridation ,Journal of Public Health Dentistry,Volume 64, Issue Supplement s1, pages 35–39, September 2004

Clinical trials, animal studies, and in vitro tests demonstrate effectiveness of exposure to topical (posteruptive) fluoride in caries prevention and reduction of enamel dissolution. However, careful analyses of human epidemiologic data on caries increments, following communal water fluoridation, show unquestionably that fluoride has an important preemptive effect on caries in permanent teeth, particularly on pit and fissure surfaces. These preemptive or systemic benefits also apply to the use of fluoride supplements or fluoridated salt when used continuously during the period of tooth formation. The role of systemic fluoride in caries prevention is neither “minimal” nor “of borderline significance.” On the contrary, it is a major factor in preventing pit and fissure caries, the most common site of tooth decay. Maximal caries-preventive effects of water fluoridation are achieved by exposure to optimal fluoride levels both pre- and posteruptively.

K. A. Singh BDS, GDPH, PhD^*, Relative Effects of Pre- and Posteruption Water Fluoride on Caries Experience of Permanent First Molars,Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Volume 63, Issue 1, pages 11–19, March 2003

Objectives: Previous studies have attributed the caries-preventive effects of preeruption (PRE) and posteruption (POST) exposure to fluoridated water based on data collected before and after the commencement or discontinuation of water fluoridation. This study aims to determine the relative pre- and posteruption exposure effects of fluoridated water on caries experience of 6-15-year-old Australian children based on individual residential histories. Methods: Parental questionnaires covering residential history of participants were linked to their oral examinations conducted between June 1991 and May 1992 by the School Dental Services of South Australia and Queensland. Percentage of lifetime exposed to optimally fluoridated water PRE and POST was calculated with respect to the eruption age for first permanent molars. Combined pre- and posteruption categories were created to test PRE against POST exposure: PRE & POST=0, PRE<POST, PRE=POST in the range 0-90 percent of lifetime exposure, PRE>POST, and PRE & POST≥90 percent lifetime exposure. These categories were used as indicator variables with PRE and POST=0 as reference in an analysis of first permanent molar DMFS scores. The linear regression model controlled for important potential confounders. Results: Participation rates were 69.7 percent in South Australia and 55.6 percent in Queensland with 9,690 and 10,195 participants, respectively. Pre- and posteruption exposures were strongly correlated (r=. 74; P<.01). Compared to the reference, the categories PRE>POST, PRE=POST in the range 0-90 percent, and PRE and POST≥90 percent showed significantly lower caries levels. Conclusions: The findings indicated that preeruption exposure was required for a caries-preventive effect and that exposure after eruption alone did not lower caries levels significantly. However, the maximum caries-preventive effects of fluoridated water were achieved by high pre- and posteruption exposure.

Seems that your older paper from 1997 might have used questionable metrics. That happens. An article is published. Scientists evaluate the paper and do studies to check on whether or not the work was done well or properly. They publish further information sometimes showing errors in the earlier paper as in this case.

That's what happens when you just copy things from a site without reading about the articles.

[stereologist]

So prove it wrong. You saying its BS, does nothing for anyone. No one cares about your opinion, least of all me. And what do other threads have to do with this conversation?

Whatever

[stereologist]

Many people in the damn EPA are against water floridation, and prove beyond any doubt that this is not a medical argument, but a political argument.

...

More cut and paste from another dubious site.

[preacherman76]

Ernest Newbrun DMD, PhD, Systemic Benefits of Fluoride and Fluoridation ,Journal of Public Health Dentistry,Volume 64, Issue Supplement s1, pages 35–39, September 2004

K. A. Singh BDS, GDPH, PhD^*, Relative Effects of Pre- and Posteruption Water Fluoride on Caries Experience of Permanent First Molars,Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Volume 63, Issue 1, pages 11–19, March 2003

Seems that your older paper from 1997 might have used questionable metrics. That happens. An article is published. Scientists evaluate the paper and do studies to check on whether or not the work was done well or properly. They publish further information sometimes showing errors in the earlier paper as in this case.

That's what happens when you just copy things from a site without reading about the articles.

Oh thanks for your OPINION. Clearly you know more then these scientists who did the studies. Its great to have someone as smart as you to dismiss professional studies and throw them in the trash without having to prove yourself in any way. So all this proof is trash cause you believe they "might have used questionable metrics" in just one study of several that conclude the same thing. Ok Im done with you.

Edited October 1, 2013 by preacherman76

[Little Fish]

Whatever

what are you getting out of this?

so much negative energy you are courting.

[preacherman76]

More cut and paste from another dubious site.

Prove it wrong, or continue to look like a fool.

I mean seriously is water floridation a religion to you? Its a fact that many people from the EPA have spoken out against water floridation. The fact that I copied that information is no way proves it wrong. What the hell kinda backward thinking is that??

If it isnt a fact, then prove it wrong, with more then your opinion please.

[preacherman76]

Whatever

Yeah, thats what I thought

[stereologist]

what are you getting out of this?

so much negative energy you are courting.

What are you getting out of this? So much false information being regurgitated from sites posting opinion and studies known to be flawed.

[stereologist]

Prove it wrong, or continue to look like a fool.

I mean seriously is water floridation a religion to you? Its a fact that many people from the EPA have spoken out against water floridation. The fact that I copied that information is no way proves it wrong. What the hell kinda backward thinking is that??

If it isnt a fact, then prove it wrong, with more then your opinion please.

Already proved it wrong. Those that cannot see that look like fools.

The article you cut and pasted from has no bearing on the issue. It simply claims that some employees have expressed an opinion.

It appears that fluoridation is a religion to you.

The fact that you can only cut and paste shows that you really have not examined the issue.

[stereologist]

I am not surprised that a website with a questionable agenda stoops to posting from articles shown to be flawed.

I am not surprised that people take the websites hook, line, and sinker. Then, again I believe that people do not understand what it means to publish an article.

[preacherman76]

I am not surprised that a website with a questionable agenda stoops to posting from articles shown to be flawed.

I am not surprised that people take the websites hook, line, and sinker. Then, again I believe that people do not understand what it means to publish an article.

Wow, an agenda. You are believeing in people who are making big money putting toxic waste in our water, then acuse me of pushing an agenda.

You copied and pasted (a big no no with you) a opinion of one guy who striaght admits floride in tooth paste is relevent to the decline of tooth decay, then says water floridation was also a major contributing factor, with no evidence or proof what so ever.

I show you studies performed by several different people, in several different countries, with detailed information in each on exactly how and why water floridation hasnt prevented anything, and you just dismiss it cause you found one guy who said otherwise with no proof.

Then I give you several different studies, from several different scientists, all who worked for the EPA, showing water floridation is harmful to several different functions of the body, and to you, those are "simply claims that some employees have expressed an opinion." MM no, those are scientists who's research directly influanced their concerns. Its cause of people like you that criminal governments get away with coruption that directly negatively effects its people, cause you have to hold on to this belief that they have the best intentions for you. I litteraly feel sorry for you.

Edited October 1, 2013 by preacherman76

[Big Bad Voodoo]

preacherman76

When people hear about conspiracy theory they say: Come on, nobody do that... when you grew up with morals in Christian spirit, you can not believe that people could be so diabolical.

George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush was a major Nazi and Hitler's banker.

Roosevelt said: In politics, nothing happens by chance. If something happens you can bet it was planned that way.

Games train children for war.

Corparation control resources and wealth. Resources and wealth controlls human behavior.

ADHD do not exist.

Ben Bernanke Director of Federal Reserves on 8.11.2002 year to celebrate the 90th birthday of Milton Freidman in Chicago said. I'm truly sorry we have created a great depression.

You dont need to be a doctor of economics to realize that the story of supply and demand as the cause of escalating oil prices is lie because from 1999 to 2007 it rose 700%. At that time, demand has not increased nearly as much to explain such a price increase.

All this is remind of the Wizard of Oz, in which both sides of the dirty work for the hidden figure hiding behind the curtain.

Bedini Bearden generator free energy ... In Florida in Clearwater Denny Klein invented a car powered on water. Aquagen water separated the HHO gas.

We face a monolith on the planet, slavers who are forcing us to pay for what is our birthright. water, life, happiness...

Edited October 1, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo

[stereologist]

Wow, an agenda. You are believeing in people who are making big money putting toxic waste in our water, then acuse me of pushing an agenda.

You copied and pasted (a big no no with you) a opinion of one guy who striaght admits floride in tooth paste is relevent to the decline of tooth decay, then says water floridation was also a major contributing factor, with no evidence or proof what so ever.

I show you studies performed by several different people, in several different countries, with detailed information in each on exactly how and why water floridation hasnt prevented anything, and you just dismiss it cause you found one guy who said otherwise with no proof.

Then I give you several different studies, from several different scientists, all who worked for the EPA, showing water floridation is harmful to several different functions of the body, and to you, those are "simply claims that some employees have expressed an opinion." MM no, those are scientists who's research directly influanced their concerns. Its cause of people like you that criminal governments get away with coruption that directly negatively effects its people, cause you have to hold on to this belief that they have the best intentions for you. I litteraly feel sorry for you.

Thanks for making it clear what the agenda is: "big money putting toxic waste in our water". There you are pushing your agenda.

I posted the abstract for a journal article. That is not a problem. Your nearly complete repost of a webpage is a copyright infringement. It exceeds fair use. Please learn. The 2 articles I referenced show that the wacko agenda site you infringed upon by the wholesale copy of their text listed an article long since show to have employed a flawed methodology. BTW, there were multiple authors so each paper had you bothered to look. Now we know that you do not.

Did you actually provide several different studies in post #99 where you also infringed on copyrighted material by grossly exceeding fair use? Let's see. The answer is no. There are references to other articles. There are 2 mentions of studies. Do you understand the difference? I checked out both. I know you did not. The article sounds so similar in nature to the movie Expelled, a movie well documented as lie.

I feel sorry for your inability to spell, and to think on your own.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Thanks for making it clear what the agenda is: "big money putting toxic waste in our water". There you are pushing your agenda.

I posted the abstract for a journal article. That is not a problem. Your nearly complete repost of a webpage is a copyright infringement. It exceeds fair use. Please learn. The 2 articles I referenced show that the wacko agenda site you infringed upon by the wholesale copy of their text listed an article long since show to have employed a flawed methodology. BTW, there were multiple authors so each paper had you bothered to look. Now we know that you do not.

Did you actually provide several different studies in post #99 where you also infringed on copyrighted material by grossly exceeding fair use? Let's see. The answer is no. There are references to other articles. There are 2 mentions of studies. Do you understand the difference? I checked out both. I know you did not. The article sounds so similar in nature to the movie Expelled, a movie well documented as lie.

I feel sorry for your inability to spell, and to think on your own.

Can you clearly state what benefits there are to putting these toxic substances in our water supply? Apart from companies not having to pay to dispose of it that is.

[stereologist]

Let's repeat this for people that are easily confused by wacko agenda sites.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm

After conducting sequential cross-sectional surveys in these communities over 13-15 years, caries was reduced 50%-70% among children in the communities with fluoridated water (12).

As a result, dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century. For example, the mean DMFT among persons aged 12 years in the United States declined 68%, from 4.0 in 1966-1970 (14) to 1.3 in 1988-1994 (CDC, unpublished data, 1999)

[stereologist]

Can you clearly state what benefits there are to putting these toxic substances in our water supply? Apart from companies not having to pay to dispose of it that is.

The claim that 'companies not having to pay to dispose of it that is." is hogwash and not worthy of discussion.

[preacherman76]

Thanks for making it clear what the agenda is: "big money putting toxic waste in our water". There you are pushing your agenda.

I posted the abstract for a journal article. That is not a problem. Your nearly complete repost of a webpage is a copyright infringement. It exceeds fair use. Please learn. The 2 articles I referenced show that the wacko agenda site you infringed upon by the wholesale copy of their text listed an article long since show to have employed a flawed methodology. BTW, there were multiple authors so each paper had you bothered to look. Now we know that you do not.

Did you actually provide several different studies in post #99 where you also infringed on copyrighted material by grossly exceeding fair use? Let's see. The answer is no. There are references to other articles. There are 2 mentions of studies. Do you understand the difference? I checked out both. I know you did not. The article sounds so similar in nature to the movie Expelled, a movie well documented as lie.

I feel sorry for your inability to spell, and to think on your own.

Wow. Some folks just dont know when to give up. Copy right infringment? My goodness man.

[preacherman76]

The claim that 'companies not having to pay to dispose of it that is." is hogwash and not worthy of discussion.

Its only not worthy of conversation to someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about.

[stereologist]

Wow. Some folks just dont know when to give up. Copy right infringment? My goodness man.

I suggest you learn about fair use and why you have infringed on the copyright of the sites by wholesale copying of their material.

[stereologist]

Its only not worthy of conversation to someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about.

Instead of copy and paste consider reading and presenting the information at other sites. That way you won't look like a kiddie that can't think for themselves.

Edited October 2, 2013 by stereologist

[stereologist]

One of the question that should be in everyone's mind is why the water supply?

1. The water supply is already being "medicated" with chlorine

2. It gets to everyone especially those less able to get adequate medical and dental care

3. It is inexpensive

Is anyone there demanding that the water supply be free of chlorine? It can combine with organic molecules to produce toxic materials that can lead to cancer and neurotoxins. I am a little astonished at the lack of people upset at chlorination of water.

It is clear that fluorine compounds prevent caries. There are flawed studies that have been published that suggest fluorine compounds in the water supply is ineffective. You can find these flawed studies on any number of wacky agenda sites. They don't publish the studies showing the flaws though.

Adding fluorine compounds to water is cheap. It costs pennies a month per person. It reaches people that are unable to obtain adequate medical and dental care. It certainly is not a replacement for dental care, but it is effective in preventing caries.

[stereologist]

The next question is about safety. As with all things too much is not a good idea. Excess water can kill as was pointed out earlier. What about fluorine compounds? They are no different. Too much is bad.

Because fluorine compounds are effective they have been added to toothpaste and other products. This leaves the predicament of how to balance the water distributed compounds so that the general population is not confront with too much fluorine. There has to be a balancing act with the minimal threshold that is effective, the level at which benefits are reached, the seasonal changes in water consumption, the amount of fluorine in products people use.

This is where groups such as the EPA come in. There are many ideas on adjusting fluorine compound concentrations so that the compounds are effective without having any of the adverse effects. Not everyone is in agreement. If it were simple then there might be agreement, but the issue is not simple.

A complication is that fluorine occurs naturally in water supplies. That is how the benefit of fluorine in water was discovered in the first place. It takes only a short while at one of the agenda sites to realize that China has many places with high fluorine concentrations in the water supply. The ground water is high in fluorine in those areas. That makes some of these places valuable study areas.

[preacherman76]

Instead of copy and paste consider reading and presenting the information at other sites. That way you won't look like a kiddie that can't think for themselves.

Hu? Its a fact that instead of spending a fortune to dispose of this toxic waste, they instead get paid to dump it in our water. How does pointing out this fact me I cant think for myself?

[stereologist]

Hu? Its a fact that instead of spending a fortune to dispose of this toxic waste, they instead get paid to dump it in our water. How does pointing out this fact me I cant think for myself?

Sorry, not a fact. Which wacko agenda site did you get this misinformation from?

[preacherman76]

Sorry, not a fact. Which wacko agenda site did you get this misinformation from?

Let me ask you something. If I were to prove it to you, would it make any difference to you?