106 replies to this topic

[niner]

I mentioned a few times: the aluminum industry. Fluoride is a hazardous by-product that is costly to properly dispose of. Even given that it may have some benefit to teeth, I'd more concerned with oral consumption in the water supply. I've seen pictures of the suits that are worn to protect the guys that dump Fluoride in our water supply from, well, getting chemically burned to death. It is illegal to dump in the ocean for a reason.

Dannov, can you provide any believable documentation that would show that the aluminum industry is behind fluoridation? If fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum production, does water fluoridation represent a significant fraction of that fluoride? How big is the fluoride market overall, and what fraction of it is water fluoridation? I'd be willing to look at the evidence of a conspiracy here, but at this point, absent any evidence, it sounds pretty tinfoil hattish.

[mike250]

I don't see the point of a low concentration fluoride or even Vitamin D in our waters. Its unnecessary given that we can get both from other sources.

Probably the thinking behind it is: Many people will not get whatever substance from other sources, due to lack of knowledge or money. Those people who would have to go out and buy a supplement to get it then wouldn't have to spend their time and money on it. I'm not all that crazy about drugging the water supply, but I think we should be intellectually honest about how dangerous fluoride is, and how much fluoride we are exposed to in our food and drinks, which for many people is a hell of a lot more than they would ever get from tap water.

thats pretty poor thinking I say. Why not educate the people about topical fluoride use or is that too difficult to do. I also see nothing wrong with going out there and buying a Vitamin D supplement. Its not like they are expensive.

Have more bad news for you. They also put chlorine in water supplies. Their excuse is that they do it to kill bacteria. You should be given the chance to kill the bacteria yourself, don't you think? (I'm not sure if that's part of the 2nd amendment).

lol, nice try but thats not a good analogy

Sure it is. Chlorine is so toxic and horrible that it was outlawed even in war!!! Many people can not decide whether fluorine or chlorine deserve the title of "most dangerous substance on earth". There are countless studies showing adverse health effects from chlorine or its compounds, at some concentration or other, and some of them are being suppressed!

See how the fluoride arguments work? So I'm trying to figure out why it's a bad analogy... Fluoride is put in water at very low concentration because it's been shown to reduce cavities, i.e. it's good for you. Chlorine is put in water because it kills germs that are bad for you, i.e. it's good for you. Both fluoride and chlorine have negative aspects, particularly at higher concentrations. There are alternatives to water fluoridation, but some people would not use them. There are alternatives to chlorination, but some people would not use them. Well, I can't figure out why the analogy is that bad.

You didn't go into detail the first time and made a rather sarcastic post, thats why it sounded like a bad analogy. Just so we are clear here, nobody disagrees that Fluoride is good for your teeth and I'm not sure why you think we're somehow conspiracy theorists- perhaps you accidentally drank too much fluoride

I mentioned earlier that the various Fluoride therapies are all accessible to people- talking about the developed countries here-- and regular check-ups to dentists can implement these therapies if necessary. Now some people won't get a regular check-up for whatever reasons- pure laziness but thats just my humble opinion- or can't afford one and water fluoridation is indeed a plausible option in this case, but then you have to consider the other side; the other people who already use fluoride through one or more of the other therapies. What will water fluoridation add to those such individuals. It sounds pretty redundant.

Edited by mike250, 29 February 2008 - 04:20 AM.

[senseix]

I don't see the point of a low concentration fluoride or even Vitamin D in our waters. Its unnecessary given that we can get both from other sources.

Probably the thinking behind it is: Many people will not get whatever substance from other sources, due to lack of knowledge or money. Those people who would have to go out and buy a supplement to get it then wouldn't have to spend their time and money on it. I'm not all that crazy about drugging the water supply, but I think we should be intellectually honest about how dangerous fluoride is, and how much fluoride we are exposed to in our food and drinks, which for many people is a hell of a lot more than they would ever get from tap water.

thats pretty poor thinking I say. Why not educate the people about topical fluoride use or is that too difficult to do. I also see nothing wrong with going out there and buying a Vitamin D supplement. Its not like they are expensive.

Have more bad news for you. They also put chlorine in water supplies. Their excuse is that they do it to kill bacteria. You should be given the chance to kill the bacteria yourself, don't you think? (I'm not sure if that's part of the 2nd amendment).

lol, nice try but thats not a good analogy

Sure it is. Chlorine is so toxic and horrible that it was outlawed even in war!!! Many people can not decide whether fluorine or chlorine deserve the title of "most dangerous substance on earth". There are countless studies showing adverse health effects from chlorine or its compounds, at some concentration or other, and some of them are being suppressed!

See how the fluoride arguments work? So I'm trying to figure out why it's a bad analogy... Fluoride is put in water at very low concentration because it's been shown to reduce cavities, i.e. it's good for you. Chlorine is put in water because it kills germs that are bad for you, i.e. it's good for you. Both fluoride and chlorine have negative aspects, particularly at higher concentrations. There are alternatives to water fluoridation, but some people would not use them. There are alternatives to chlorination, but some people would not use them. Well, I can't figure out why the analogy is that bad.

You didn't go into detail the first time and made a rather sarcastic post, thats why it sounded like a bad analogy. Just so we are clear here, nobody disagrees that Fluoride is good for your teeth and I'm not sure why you think we're somehow conspiracy theorists- perhaps you accidentally drank too much fluoride

I mentioned earlier that the various Fluoride therapies are all accessible to people- talking about the developed countries here-- and regular check-ups to dentists can implement these therapies if necessary. Now some people won't get a regular check-up for whatever reasons- pure laziness but thats just my humble opinion- or can't afford one and water fluoridation is indeed a plausible option in this case, but then you have to consider the other side; the other people who already use fluoride through one or more of the other therapies. What will water fluoridation add to those such individuals. It sounds pretty redundant.

Not only does it sound pretty redundant it is VERY redundant. And even tho i don't agree with some of what Niner has said, i'm in no ways trying to start a conspiracy, i do want to point out that history has shown that not only our goverment but big business, and sometimes small businesses, choose money over safety, that isn't a conspiracy, that is history. I said it before this topic isn't a passionate one enough to do the research to try and prove every angle of what i have to say, i have a water filter that takes out roughly 98% of the flouride. I use flouride mouthwash and toothpaste, i just don't drink it all day at the levels everyone else without a filter system does:) If i wasen't able to reduce the amount of flouride in my water, you better believe this would be a passionate topic to me, just happens i'm content:)

The way some people push this stuff "sodium flouride" into drinking water and other methods, you would think it was a vitamin or fruit/vegetables, i mean geesh, if you listen to what some doctors will have you believe you should be taking this stuff all day long, not only topical but internally, knowing that this is a poision. At low levels sure its not going to kill you quickly, but taking it as much as some over the years suggest, i question seriously how safe that is over the longterm. Topically i have no issue, internally i think it's a huge mistake.

Edited by senseix, 29 February 2008 - 04:35 AM.

[dannov]

You can find plenty of reputable sources for the Aluminum industry's role in Fluoridation with a quick Google search:

http://scholar.googl...amp;oi=scholarr

http://www.fluoridea...um-industry.htm

http://www.austehc.u...ech/unimelb.htm

Note: The above link just simply says this--

The recovery of fluoride from aluminium industry wastes
Chief Researchers: Wood Prof D G, Adrien Dr J R
Sponsors: APAI; DEPCO-TRH Pty Ltd
Duration: 1998-2001
Descriptors: SPENT POTLINING--TREATMENT; LEACHING
Research Field Classification: 291899 Interdisciplinary Engineering nec

http://www.ahealedpl...et/fluoride.htm

^^ The origins and everything you can ask for about the Aluminum industry and Fluoride by-products.

[maxwatt]

I mentioned a few times: the aluminum industry. Fluoride is a hazardous by-product that is costly to properly dispose of. Even given that it may have some benefit to teeth, I'd more concerned with oral consumption in the water supply. I've seen pictures of the suits that are worn to protect the guys that dump Fluoride in our water supply from, well, getting chemically burned to death. It is illegal to dump in the ocean for a reason.

Dannov, can you provide any believable documentation that would show that the aluminum industry is behind fluoridation? If fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum production, does water fluoridation represent a significant fraction of that fluoride? How big is the fluoride market overall, and what fraction of it is water fluoridation? I'd be willing to look at the evidence of a conspiracy here, but at this point, absent any evidence, it sounds pretty tinfoil hattish.

Don't knock those tinfoil hats. I've never been struck by lightning while wearing mine.

FWIW, my former dentist "complained" that after New York City fluoridated its water, business fell off about 60%, causing severe income reductions on most dentists. The typical practitioner was forced to learn cosmetic procedures such as orthodontia (tooth straightening) or tooth whitening procedures. The less ethical performed unnecessary work after diagnosing non-existing problems.

The epidemiological evidence does not support any ill effect from water fluoridation as it is practiced in municipal water supplies. There were problems in the first few years of fluoridation with kidney dialysis, because the units did not then filter out fluoride, resulting in excessive absorption in the bones of dialysis patients. This has been rectified for over 40 years.

(Certain segments of the NIH are passionately concerned with public health, and would have brought any such problems to light in short order, as they did with the dialysis problems, and as they did with the problem of excessive arsenic in well water or in the public water supplies of several states in the Southwest. The Repugnant Party legislated the acceptable limits up beyond what the scientists specified, because it would have been "too expensive" to treat the water supply of Phoenix. Not that a Democrat controlled legislature would necessarily have done any better. If you live in New Mexico or Arizona or West Texas, you'd better drink distilled or bottled water or have a reverse osmosis filter on your water supply.)

The negative arguments on fluoride I can find all use "rhetorical" forms of argument, based on analogy and emotional appeal. This does not constitute proof in any scientific sense. Arguments of such form should arouse suspicion as to their veracity and as to the authors' motivation.

[quarter]

I saw a local news item here in Northern Ireland which compared the dental health of the children in two comparably sized towns Newry (Newry now thinks its a city) and Dundalk separated by just 14 miles but on either side of the north - south border. The water in Dundalk is fluoridated ,where as in Newry it is not: LINK

comparative figures for dental treatment levels for the Newry and Dundalk areas show that children across all age groups in Dundalk have significantly better dental health than their counterparts in Newry. For example, five year old children in Newry have on average three decayed, missing or filled baby teeth in comparison to an average of one for five year old children in the Dundalk area. The figures for 12 year olds show that Newry children have on average more than two decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth while Dundalk children have an average of less than one.

These findings are consistent with previous studies which have shown marked differences in the level of dental health between children in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. There is widespread agreement among international researchers that the single most important contributory factor to the better levels of oral health in the Republic of Ireland as compared to Northern Ireland is the fluoridation of public water supplies in the Republic.

The scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of water fluoridation in reducing tooth decay is overwhelming. Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction of up to 50 per cent. In 1992 a study comparing the decay levels of 12 year old children in Dublin and Glasgow showed that the level of decay was 45 per cent lower in Dublin which is fluoridated compared to Glasgow which is non-fluoridated. A recent publication comparing the decay levels for five to seven year old children in 23 countries in Europe shows that Ireland has the lowest level of decay for this age group. It is also the country with the highest percentage of its population receiving fluoridated water.

Despite this, I am pleased my water is not fluoridated. I use a fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, and my teeth are in good health (I also drink a substantial amount of green tea), other than orthodontic treatment I have never had any need for any other dental work, no fillings or anything (touch wood). So I believe I am in no need of getting any more fluoride into my system through tap water. Having said that, it appears that fluoride in the water supply does provide benefits for those who otherwise take less care with their oral hygiene. The question is should the governments be pandering to the lowest common denominator at the expense of those who don't need it.

Edited by quarter, 29 February 2008 - 02:52 PM.

[maxwatt]

I saw a local news item here in Northern Ireland which compared the dental health of the children in two comparably sized towns Newry (Newry now thinks its a city) and Dundalk separated by just 14 miles but on either side of the north - south border. The water in Dundalk is fluoridated ,where as in Newry it is not: LINK

comparative figures for dental treatment levels for the Newry and Dundalk areas show that children across all age groups in Dundalk have significantly better dental health than their counterparts in Newry. For example, five year old children in Newry have on average three decayed, missing or filled baby teeth in comparison to an average of one for five year old children in the Dundalk area. The figures for 12 year olds show that Newry children have on average more than two decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth while Dundalk children have an average of less than one.

These findings are consistent with previous studies which have shown marked differences in the level of dental health between children in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. There is widespread agreement among international researchers that the single most important contributory factor to the better levels of oral health in the Republic of Ireland as compared to Northern Ireland is the fluoridation of public water supplies in the Republic.

The scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of water fluoridation in reducing tooth decay is overwhelming. Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction of up to 50 per cent. In 1992 a study comparing the decay levels of 12 year old children in Dublin and Glasgow showed that the level of decay was 45 per cent lower in Dublin which is fluoridated compared to Glasgow which is non-fluoridated. A recent publication comparing the decay levels for five to seven year old children in 23 countries in Europe shows that Ireland has the lowest level of decay for this age group. It is also the country with the highest percentage of its population receiving fluoridated water.

Despite this, I am pleased my water is not fluoridated. I use a fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, and my teeth are in good health (I also drink a substantial amount of green tea), other than orthodontic treatment I have never had any need for any other dental work, no fillings or anything (touch wood). So I believe I am in no need of getting any more fluoride into my system through tap water. Having said that, it appears that fluoride in the water supply does provide benefits for those who otherwise take less care with their oral hygiene. The question is should the governments be pandering to the lowest common denominator at the expense of those who don't need it.

There is another question, harder to answer: How much does it cost us not to keep the lowest common denominator in good health? There is a cost

[niner]

I don't see the point of a low concentration fluoride or even Vitamin D in our waters. Its unnecessary given that we can get both from other sources.

Probably the thinking behind it is: Many people will not get whatever substance from other sources, due to lack of knowledge or money. Those people who would have to go out and buy a supplement to get it then wouldn't have to spend their time and money on it. I'm not all that crazy about drugging the water supply, but I think we should be intellectually honest about how dangerous fluoride is, and how much fluoride we are exposed to in our food and drinks, which for many people is a hell of a lot more than they would ever get from tap water.

thats pretty poor thinking I say. Why not educate the people about topical fluoride use or is that too difficult to do. I also see nothing wrong with going out there and buying a Vitamin D supplement. Its not like they are expensive.

Have more bad news for you. They also put chlorine in water supplies. Their excuse is that they do it to kill bacteria. You should be given the chance to kill the bacteria yourself, don't you think? (I'm not sure if that's part of the 2nd amendment).

lol, nice try but thats not a good analogy

Sure it is. Chlorine is so toxic and horrible that it was outlawed even in war!!! Many people can not decide whether fluorine or chlorine deserve the title of "most dangerous substance on earth". There are countless studies showing adverse health effects from chlorine or its compounds, at some concentration or other, and some of them are being suppressed!

See how the fluoride arguments work? So I'm trying to figure out why it's a bad analogy... Fluoride is put in water at very low concentration because it's been shown to reduce cavities, i.e. it's good for you. Chlorine is put in water because it kills germs that are bad for you, i.e. it's good for you. Both fluoride and chlorine have negative aspects, particularly at higher concentrations. There are alternatives to water fluoridation, but some people would not use them. There are alternatives to chlorination, but some people would not use them. Well, I can't figure out why the analogy is that bad.

You didn't go into detail the first time and made a rather sarcastic post, thats why it sounded like a bad analogy. Just so we are clear here, nobody disagrees that Fluoride is good for your teeth and I'm not sure why you think we're somehow conspiracy theorists- perhaps you accidentally drank too much fluoride

Mike, the post that you are calling sarcastic isn't mine, just to be clear. I'm not sure who you're referring to on the point of not going into detail, perhaps that was me, but this is a volunteer effort. Anyway, here's my position: I'm not actually in favor of mass drugging of the population as a general rule, although we put iodide in salt to pretty good effect. The thing that I'm arguing for is intellectual honesty. The more I look into the fluoride debate, the more I find the anti-fluoride people doing things like: Referencing 40 year old research that's been superseded by better data, presenting only data that makes their case while ignoring all other data, being utterly ignorant about the existence of inverted U-shaped curves of benefit vs dose, grossly overstating negative consequences of fluoride on the basis of doses far in excess of human dose, and the seemingly ever-present ravings of conspiratorial actions by "the government" and "the aluminum industry". Not every person voicing anti-fluoride opinions does each of these, but lots of people do lots of them.

I do think that there is some evidence that fluoride is not harmless to all people. I think that it's too easy for some people to be overexposed to fluoride, considering water, dental products, and food sources in total. As such, I'm at least sympathetic to the idea of halting fluoridation, but I would like to see such a halt combined with some outreach into the community to counteract the negative effects of removing fluoride. As far as threats to human health are concerned, if nanoparticulate and toxic emissions from coal burning (or diesel, to a lesser extent) are rated as "100", I would give controlled fluoridation of water about a 0.1.

[edward]

I've watched this thread grow each day (in dismay because as I stated in the vaccination thread, the topics of vaccination and fluoride tend to draw out some pretty wacky unproductive views) and have resisted the temptation to comment, but I can no longer do so... So I am going to "weigh in" on this issue.

I read about fluoride awhile ago when I first began ramping up my health and life extension lifestyle and my conclusions are as follows. First of all the evidence in my opinion shows that firstly topical application of fluoride is overwhelmingly positive for dental health; secondly, that ingestion of fluoride is not beneficial and at some level is toxic, thirdly, the levels in water are probably not enough to be toxic or even noticed.

That being said, in an ideal world I would prefer not to drink my fluoride (and in general I don't like the idea of mass fortification, for instance vitamin b fortified products usually use niacinamide as the version of b3 probably because its cheap and readily available, good intentions just annoying results) but would instead judiciously use fluoride topically in toothpaste or mouthwash. Since I live in an area where the water is fluoridated this is not an option unless I only consume, cook with etc. bottled water, which in my opinion is a big waste of money. So I currently use an xylitol toothpaste, filter my water (fluoride is not completly filtered by household 3 stage filters, though I recently read there is a reduction) and I use a fluoride toothpaste a few times a week just to be on the safe side.

Talk about government conspiracies, mind control, major health problems, fluoride/aluminum cartels and other such nonsense are just that nonsense.

[Hedgehog]

Dihydrogen monoxide is really bad! wink wink

Dihydrogen monoxide:

• is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
• contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
• may cause severe burns.
• contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
• accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
• may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

• as an industrial solvent and coolant.
• in nuclear power plants.
• in the production of styrofoam.
• as a fire retardant.
• in many forms of cruel animal research.
• in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
• as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Edited by Hedgehog, 29 February 2008 - 11:17 PM.

[edward]

They even have a t-shirt lol... But then again the fluoride people have a t-shirt and a bumper sticker...... But then again the vaccination people really do have the right strategy in recruiting people at a young age...

[inawe]

Sometimes I come across people who by the aroma I can tell don't let
Dihydrogen monoxide touch their skin. They must be afraid of some
conspiracy.

[senseix]

They even have a t-shirt lol... But then again the fluoride people have a t-shirt and a bumper sticker...... But then again the vaccination people really do have the right strategy in recruiting people at a young age...

LOL i love those pics man put a huge smile on my face:)

[mike250]

I saw a local news item here in Northern Ireland which compared the dental health of the children in two comparably sized towns Newry (Newry now thinks its a city) and Dundalk separated by just 14 miles but on either side of the north - south border. The water in Dundalk is fluoridated ,where as in Newry it is not: LINK

comparative figures for dental treatment levels for the Newry and Dundalk areas show that children across all age groups in Dundalk have significantly better dental health than their counterparts in Newry. For example, five year old children in Newry have on average three decayed, missing or filled baby teeth in comparison to an average of one for five year old children in the Dundalk area. The figures for 12 year olds show that Newry children have on average more than two decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth while Dundalk children have an average of less than one.

These findings are consistent with previous studies which have shown marked differences in the level of dental health between children in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. There is widespread agreement among international researchers that the single most important contributory factor to the better levels of oral health in the Republic of Ireland as compared to Northern Ireland is the fluoridation of public water supplies in the Republic.

The scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of water fluoridation in reducing tooth decay is overwhelming. Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction of up to 50 per cent. In 1992 a study comparing the decay levels of 12 year old children in Dublin and Glasgow showed that the level of decay was 45 per cent lower in Dublin which is fluoridated compared to Glasgow which is non-fluoridated. A recent publication comparing the decay levels for five to seven year old children in 23 countries in Europe shows that Ireland has the lowest level of decay for this age group. It is also the country with the highest percentage of its population receiving fluoridated water.

Despite this, I am pleased my water is not fluoridated. I use a fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, and my teeth are in good health (I also drink a substantial amount of green tea), other than orthodontic treatment I have never had any need for any other dental work, no fillings or anything (touch wood). So I believe I am in no need of getting any more fluoride into my system through tap water. Having said that, it appears that fluoride in the water supply does provide benefits for those who otherwise take less care with their oral hygiene. The question is should the governments be pandering to the lowest common denominator at the expense of those who don't need it.

There is another question, harder to answer: How much does it cost us not to keep the lowest common denominator in good health? There is a cost

Maybe water fluoridation is less expensive but why don't you give/allow greater access to dental care among the lowest common denominator just like the rest of the population.

Edited by mike250, 01 March 2008 - 01:54 AM.

[mike250]

I don't see the point of a low concentration fluoride or even Vitamin D in our waters. Its unnecessary given that we can get both from other sources.

Probably the thinking behind it is: Many people will not get whatever substance from other sources, due to lack of knowledge or money. Those people who would have to go out and buy a supplement to get it then wouldn't have to spend their time and money on it. I'm not all that crazy about drugging the water supply, but I think we should be intellectually honest about how dangerous fluoride is, and how much fluoride we are exposed to in our food and drinks, which for many people is a hell of a lot more than they would ever get from tap water.

thats pretty poor thinking I say. Why not educate the people about topical fluoride use or is that too difficult to do. I also see nothing wrong with going out there and buying a Vitamin D supplement. Its not like they are expensive.

Have more bad news for you. They also put chlorine in water supplies. Their excuse is that they do it to kill bacteria. You should be given the chance to kill the bacteria yourself, don't you think? (I'm not sure if that's part of the 2nd amendment).

lol, nice try but thats not a good analogy

Sure it is. Chlorine is so toxic and horrible that it was outlawed even in war!!! Many people can not decide whether fluorine or chlorine deserve the title of "most dangerous substance on earth". There are countless studies showing adverse health effects from chlorine or its compounds, at some concentration or other, and some of them are being suppressed!

See how the fluoride arguments work? So I'm trying to figure out why it's a bad analogy... Fluoride is put in water at very low concentration because it's been shown to reduce cavities, i.e. it's good for you. Chlorine is put in water because it kills germs that are bad for you, i.e. it's good for you. Both fluoride and chlorine have negative aspects, particularly at higher concentrations. There are alternatives to water fluoridation, but some people would not use them. There are alternatives to chlorination, but some people would not use them. Well, I can't figure out why the analogy is that bad.

You didn't go into detail the first time and made a rather sarcastic post, thats why it sounded like a bad analogy. Just so we are clear here, nobody disagrees that Fluoride is good for your teeth and I'm not sure why you think we're somehow conspiracy theorists- perhaps you accidentally drank too much fluoride

Mike, the post that you are calling sarcastic isn't mine, just to be clear. I'm not sure who you're referring to on the point of not going into detail, perhaps that was me, but this is a volunteer effort. Anyway, here's my position: I'm not actually in favor of mass drugging of the population as a general rule, although we put iodide in salt to pretty good effect. The thing that I'm arguing for is intellectual honesty. The more I look into the fluoride debate, the more I find the anti-fluoride people doing things like: Referencing 40 year old research that's been superseded by better data, presenting only data that makes their case while ignoring all other data, being utterly ignorant about the existence of inverted U-shaped curves of benefit vs dose, grossly overstating negative consequences of fluoride on the basis of doses far in excess of human dose, and the seemingly ever-present ravings of conspiratorial actions by "the government" and "the aluminum industry". Not every person voicing anti-fluoride opinions does each of these, but lots of people do lots of them.

I do think that there is some evidence that fluoride is not harmless to all people. I think that it's too easy for some people to be overexposed to fluoride, considering water, dental products, and food sources in total. As such, I'm at least sympathetic to the idea of halting fluoridation, but I would like to see such a halt combined with some outreach into the community to counteract the negative effects of removing fluoride. As far as threats to human health are concerned, if nanoparticulate and toxic emissions from coal burning (or diesel, to a lesser extent) are rated as "100", I would give controlled fluoridation of water about a 0.1.

That comment was not directed towards you niner.
Perhaps you can just allow more/easier access to dental care for the poorer communities instead of just fluoridating the water supply. Not sure how much more cost-effective that will be but it is an alternative option nonetheless.

Edited by mike250, 01 March 2008 - 02:01 AM.

[lunarsolarpower]

They even have a t-shirt lol... But then again the fluoride people have a t-shirt and a bumper sticker...... But then again the vaccination people really do have the right strategy in recruiting people at a young age...

Here's their lobbyist:

[senseix]

About 6 months ago I started using xylitol as my main sweetener. At the time my dentist said I needed two root canals and three teeth pulled. Well, the pain stopped quickly, I never got the root canals and I still have my teeth and my kids, who I also gave the xylitol to as almost their exclusive sweetener (heck, I'm not a hard ass so there still is the occasional candy bar and what not, for me too) got a no cavities report for the first time in their life. I have gotten rid of my flouride tooth paste and now use Xyliwhite with xylitol and a little baking soda, basically. There are also xylitol based mouth washes though I've yet to get any.

Last time I was at my kids dentist and they both got the zero cavities report, I told the receptionists about xylitol. They hadn't heard of it. While we were talking the dentist came in and he said "Xylitol?" and shook his head in the affirmative. Apparently he knew of it and yet never talked about it at his practice, at least not in front of his receptionists. I've tried a couple of different brands and have settled on Xlear as the superior one, it dissolves completely easily while the other brands I've tried left some grainy stuff that never dissolved which had me wondering what exactly that stuff was. My last order was for 25 pounds which was at a price break and with free shipping. Should last a good while though it is a bit less sweet than sugar. I and my family still use honey occasionally.

I get water that is filtered using reverse osmosis two or three times and subjected to heavy doses of UV light. When we first moved here some ten years ago the city did not fluoridate the water but as of about a year and a half ago they started. I wonder if the reverse osmosis removes it. I don't want it and don't need it. I suspect there is a risk involved and I prefer to handle my own dosing of supplements, thank you.

Oh, I also got a large supply of a xylitol sweetened gum in various flavors (Xylipro) and a candy called "Sparks" sweetened exclusively with xylitol. My kids love it. I used to chew Trident gum for the xylitol until I took a magnifying glass to the list of ingredients and found it has Aspartame in it. On the web where you can buy Trident they commonly do not list the Aspartame as an ingredient, damn them.

I'm using the Xyitol mouthwash and the Xyliwhite Toothpaste. I like the mouth wash, but plan on still using like Act mouth wash in the evening, and the Xyitol Mouthwash in the mornings. The toothpaste tho i don't like it, i guess i'm so use to the feel of the flouride kind:( I really want it to foam up like the other stuff LOL I guess i'm being a big baby, so for now i'm sometimes using the Xyliwhite Toothpaste, but finding myself using the Total Toothpaste more.

[niner]

About 6 months ago I started using xylitol as my main sweetener. At the time my dentist said I needed two root canals and three teeth pulled. Well, the pain stopped quickly, I never got the root canals and I still have my teeth and my kids, who I also gave the xylitol to as almost their exclusive sweetener (heck, I'm not a hard ass so there still is the occasional candy bar and what not, for me too) got a no cavities report for the first time in their life. I have gotten rid of my flouride tooth paste and now use Xyliwhite with xylitol and a little baking soda, basically. There are also xylitol based mouth washes though I've yet to get any.

Wow, are your teeth ok now? Is this a case of 1) dental malpractice, 2) curative power of xylitol, or 3) upcoming need for 5 tooth implants?

[niner]

Glad to hear that it's working out so far. Does anyone know what the mechanism of action for dental use of xylitol is?

For what it's worth, I've heard of some interesting research into coercing the body to actually grow new teeth. If you can hang on for another decade or so, there may be something other than implants.

[dannov]

Interesting Niner, new teeth...that'd be insane.

[resveratrol]

Does anyone know what the mechanism of action for dental use of xylitol is?

It seems to be a result of reducing bacterial growth -- see http://www.xylitol.org/faqs.asp

[niner]

Does anyone know what the mechanism of action for dental use of xylitol is?

It seems to be a result of reducing bacterial growth -- see http://www.xylitol.org/faqs.asp

Thanks. Seems like good stuff. It's a sugar alcohol, very much like sorbitol. There seem to be a lot more health claims made for xylitol than sorbitol, though Wikipedia has it that sorbitol is used in some mouthwashes and supposedly has an anti-plaque effect. Xylitol is said to be sweeter than sorbitol, but sorbitol must be cheaper because it seems to be in more use as a sweetener. This all at least makes me feel better about the sorbitol-sweetened gum that I chew.

[krillin]

Thanks. Seems like good stuff. It's a sugar alcohol, very much like sorbitol. There seem to be a lot more health claims made for xylitol than sorbitol, though Wikipedia has it that sorbitol is used in some mouthwashes and supposedly has an anti-plaque effect. Xylitol is said to be sweeter than sorbitol, but sorbitol must be cheaper because it seems to be in more use as a sweetener. This all at least makes me feel better about the sorbitol-sweetened gum that I chew.

Just don't get carried away like these people.

http://www.medicalne...icles/93769.php

[abolitionist]

Sodium fluoride is a highly toxic by-produce of manufacturing that has no proven health benefit when taken in drinking water - and possibly no benefit even when applied directly to teeth;

Why is this a problem?

Because it's getting harder to avoid involuntary fluoride intake;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25629538/

"The government's goal is for 75 percent of U.S. residents on community systems to be getting fluoridated water by 2010."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.preferred...E_STUPIDITY.htm ;

"Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It's historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then DRINKING it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.fluoridea.../health/pineal/

http://operationawak...od-combination/


----------------

Fluoride is highly toxic! Avoid at all costs!!!

Here's some tips on avoiding fluoride;

http://www.abolition...opic.php?t=1676

Edited by abolitionist, 25 July 2008 - 07:02 AM.

[Ben]

Aspartame too! And it's in everything! Worrying stuff. Seriously. No sarcasm. Not even a bit. Not even an iota of it. Seriously!

[abolitionist]

http://en.wikipedia....de-3D-ionic.png



Think of sodium fluoride as the borg - you will be assimilated into the new world order if you partake...

Fluoride accumulates in your pineal gland - which modern science has little understanding of.

Fluoride use makes you stupid and hypnotized, they used it in German concentration camps to make the prisoners more compliant.

Edited by abolitionist, 25 July 2008 - 09:28 AM.

[Matt]

oh no we're all going to die!

What is happening to this forum? lol

Edited by Matt, 25 July 2008 - 03:02 PM.

[Shepard]

I'm moving this to Unrelated until you formulate a more compelling argument.