106 replies to this topic

[mike250]

I already use flouride toothpaste and mouth wash so I don't see the point behind having or taking in fluoridated water.

[mikeinnaples]

Remember when smoking was 'safe' and backed by the government?

[niner]

Remember when smoking was 'safe' and backed by the government?

Where are all the dead drinkers of tea, or Snapple, or fluoridated water, compared to populations that don't consume those fluoride sources?

What part of the government backed cigarettes? North Carolina congressmen?

[mike250]

Remember when smoking was 'safe' and backed by the government?

Where are all the dead drinkers of tea, or Snapple, or fluoridated water, compared to populations that don't consume those fluoride sources?

What part of the government backed cigarettes? North Carolina congressmen?

whats the logic behind flouridated water? healthy teeth? I think a good toothpaste and mouth wash are a better option.

[niner]

Remember when smoking was 'safe' and backed by the government?

Where are all the dead drinkers of tea, or Snapple, or fluoridated water, compared to populations that don't consume those fluoride sources?

What part of the government backed cigarettes? North Carolina congressmen?

whats the logic behind flouridated water? healthy teeth? I think a good toothpaste and mouth wash are a better option.

It started a long time ago when there were not so many fluoride-containing toothpastes and mouthwashes. It was a well-meaning intervention designed to improve the health of people's teeth, especially younger people. The fundamental reason they do it is because people with low fluoride diets had worse teeth than people who got adequate fluoride.

[mike250]

Remember when smoking was 'safe' and backed by the government?

Where are all the dead drinkers of tea, or Snapple, or fluoridated water, compared to populations that don't consume those fluoride sources?

What part of the government backed cigarettes? North Carolina congressmen?

whats the logic behind flouridated water? healthy teeth? I think a good toothpaste and mouth wash are a better option.

It started a long time ago when there were not so many fluoride-containing toothpastes and mouthwashes. It was a well-meaning intervention designed to improve the health of people's teeth, especially younger people. The fundamental reason they do it is because people with low fluoride diets had worse teeth than people who got adequate fluoride.

but now is a different story wouldn't you agree-- at least in the well developed countries--. I'm sure the younger part of the population can use a kids-toothpaste and mouth-wash, so it would eliminate the need for fluoridated water.

[dannov]

Remember when smoking was 'safe' and backed by the government?

Where are all the dead drinkers of tea, or Snapple, or fluoridated water, compared to populations that don't consume those fluoride sources?

What part of the government backed cigarettes? North Carolina congressmen?

whats the logic behind flouridated water? healthy teeth? I think a good toothpaste and mouth wash are a better option.

It started a long time ago when there were not so many fluoride-containing toothpastes and mouthwashes. It was a well-meaning intervention designed to improve the health of people's teeth, especially younger people. The fundamental reason they do it is because people with low fluoride diets had worse teeth than people who got adequate fluoride.

but now is a different story wouldn't you agree-- at least in the well developed countries--. I'm sure the younger part of the population can use a kids-toothpaste and mouth-wash, so it would eliminate the need for fluoridated water.'

So you're saying you trust our government? Do you honestly think politicians have our best interests in mind? Largest debtor in the world? Wager of wars that have absolutely 0 benefit to anyone but special interests? Again, go follow the paper trail.

If you honestly think pharmaceutical companies are interested in curing diseases, then I don't know what to say brother. Pharma companies are interested in suppressing symptoms, getting you hooked on their drug so you keep buying it, and keeping you somewhere between dead and alive. It's a business, and a blind faith in science without actually being a part of the industry or putting in the research to follow the paper trails or review actual congressional legislation is just absurd in my eyes. Who do you think universal health care really benefits? Not us. The companies that get the contracts that now have every American in the country paying for their drugs, whether they like it or not (with money that we don't have mind you, our country is quite bankrupt, and our standard of living is maintained by constant borrowing from China and Japan).

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

Oh, and I'd trust you on the conspiracy to suppress cancer cures except that, y'know, WC Douglass, MD's credentials far surpass anyone on this forums. That guy is nothing short of amazing, and if you'd like, I'll link you to a site that gives the exact regime right down to the diet of how to properly use graviola and paw paw to get rid of cancer. It apparently isn't helpful with brain or lung. Look it up my friend, look it up. I've put in my time.

Edited by dannov, 26 February 2008 - 06:59 AM.

[krillin]

So many logical fallacies and errors of fact, so little time...

Who cares what the drug companies and the FDA think about your natural treatments? They haven't been banned, and are cheap enough to buy without insurance. "Why didn't you hear about it?" I have, actually. Are you suggesting that the evil evil government should be using tax dollars to get your message out? You sound like LEF when they want to have it both ways. "Sob. The FDA won't approve these drugs." "Sob. The FDA approved a dangerous drug."

I don't get the part about Douglass. Is he being censored?

Fluoride is indeed naturally present in food. I agree that it doesn't graze plains. Were you drunk or something when you wrote that?

Br J Nutr. 1983 May;49(3):295-301.
Dietary intake of fluoride ashed (total fluoride) v. unashed (inorganic fluoride) analysis of individual foods.
Taves DR.

Fluoride content in ninety-three individual food items from a hospital in a fluoridated area was determined by ashing (total fluoride) v. unashing (inorganic fluoride) analysis. No discrepancy between the two methods was found by food group but two dry cereals and black pepper did show significantly more fluoride after ashing. The reason for the unavailability before ashing was not determined. Daily fluoride intake was estimated at 1.783 mg which is midway between the 1.211 and 2.201 mg reported from studies in which composite diets were analysed. Daily intake from food at 0.4 mg was one-quarter of the daily total intake 1.8 mg; a ratio consistent with those previously reported in serum, urine and bone between residents from a non-fluoridated v. fluoridated community.

PMID: 6860619

[niner]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

[senseix]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

Not all dentist are in favor of it, and not everything they put in toothpaste is good for you, even if flouride is or not, so that argument too is weak:) Oh and the flouride that is found in tea, is different form than what they put in the drinking water. Not sure which form they put in toothpaste tho, i'm not really that passionate about this subject to research it more, as i feel what you do with your body is your business, just as long as i don't have to be a part of it.

Edited by senseix, 27 February 2008 - 05:01 AM.

[dannov]

Niner--

Misinformation and lobbying. There's your two answers. Dentists are told what to know in college, and it's unfortunate that more don't question the status quo. I mean, why has John McCain been getting the majority of the anti-war vote when he's the war's biggest proponent and wants us to be in there for 100 years? A lazy and uninformed public. Being a doctor doesn't exempt you from that status.

Krillin--

I made that post pretty late and rushed I believe. I was just referring to it not being a natural substance that animals would go out and eat in the fields. Yes, Fluoride is found in a lot of foods, but is that due to it naturally being in those foods, or is it that fluoridated water is used in the processing of said food in some manner? I do know that Fluoride naturally occurs in fish bones, seaweed, and I believe *inorganic* tea.

Support for fluoride in the water supply is largely an outdated and American concept. A Chinese study found it to impair brain function (lower IQ in the village that had Fluoride vs. the one that didn't):

http://books.nap.edu...i...71&page=205

An old dentist that was appointed as a chairman to a national "Fluoridation Promotion Committee" who questioned the norm and found out the truth for himself:

http://www.fluoride-...31-2/312103.htm

As for WC Douglass, he is considered a maverick in the medical community. He's an anti-establishment, anti-Big Pharma whistleblower who's been exposing fraudulent claims in the industry for decades. He's heavily against vaccinations, and any research study he consults is independent and unassociated with special interest sponsors. He's opened my eyes up to a lot of things that I would then further research and find a ton about. I suggest signing up for Douglass' newsletter; you'll just have to get used to the occasional advertisement e-mail and little advertisements that break up his letters. Well worth it IMO, have learned a ton. He's also very passionate in what he speaks of, and doesn't really hold back any punches.

I also never said that the FDA wouldn't approve Graviola. The FDA regulates drugs, not herbs. The reason that Sinclair synethesized Resv is just so that he could get a patent on it and turn a profit. The pharma corporation that tried to do the same unsuccessfully with Graviola over the course of 7 years failed--they couldn't synethsize it, and so shelved it. One of the team scientists blew the whistle, and that's how it hit the public arena.

Edited by dannov, 27 February 2008 - 07:49 AM.

[inawe]

One can find many examples of shenanigans in the health care field. They always can be traced to unethical profiting. So, in the case of fluoride or fluoridation, we should ask who's profiting? Did Halliburton get billion dollar contracts to put fluoride in our water supply? I don't think so. Conspiracy theorist should look elsewhere. Or relax watching Doctor Strangelove (has a good example of a fluoride-conspiracy theorist).

"Fluoride therapy is commonly practiced and generally agreed upon as being useful in the modern dental field. Fluoride combats the formation of tooth decay primarily in three ways:
Fluoride promotes the remineralization of teeth, by enhancing the tooth remineralization process. Fluoride found in saliva will absorb into the surface of a tooth where demineralization has occurred. The presence of this fluoride in turn attracts other minerals (such as calcium), thus resulting in the formation of new tooth mineral.
Fluoride can make a tooth more resistant to the formation of tooth decay. The new tooth mineral that is created by the remineralization process in the presence of fluoride is actually a "harder" mineral compound than existed when the tooth initially formed. Teeth are generally composed of hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite. Fluorapatite is created during the remineralization process when fluoride is present and is more resistant to dissolution by acids (demineralization).
Fluoride can inhibit oral bacteria's ability to create acids. Fluoride decreases the rate at which the bacteria that live in dental plaque can produce acid by disrupting the bacteria and its ability to metabolize sugars. The less sugar the bacteria can consume, the less acidic waste which will be produced and participate in the demineralization process." (Thanks Wiki)

[dannov]

One can find many examples of shenanigans in the health care field. They always can be traced to unethical profiting. So, in the case of fluoride or fluoridation, we should ask who's profiting? Did Halliburton get billion dollar contracts to put fluoride in our water supply? I don't think so. Conspiracy theorist should look elsewhere. Or relax watching Doctor Strangelove (has a good example of a fluoride-conspiracy theorist).

"Fluoride therapy is commonly practiced and generally agreed upon as being useful in the modern dental field. Fluoride combats the formation of tooth decay primarily in three ways:
Fluoride promotes the remineralization of teeth, by enhancing the tooth remineralization process. Fluoride found in saliva will absorb into the surface of a tooth where demineralization has occurred. The presence of this fluoride in turn attracts other minerals (such as calcium), thus resulting in the formation of new tooth mineral.
Fluoride can make a tooth more resistant to the formation of tooth decay. The new tooth mineral that is created by the remineralization process in the presence of fluoride is actually a "harder" mineral compound than existed when the tooth initially formed. Teeth are generally composed of hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite. Fluorapatite is created during the remineralization process when fluoride is present and is more resistant to dissolution by acids (demineralization).
Fluoride can inhibit oral bacteria's ability to create acids. Fluoride decreases the rate at which the bacteria that live in dental plaque can produce acid by disrupting the bacteria and its ability to metabolize sugars. The less sugar the bacteria can consume, the less acidic waste which will be produced and participate in the demineralization process." (Thanks Wiki)

Inawe--

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.

[inawe]

One can find many examples of shenanigans in the health care field. They always can be traced to unethical profiting. So, in the case of fluoride or fluoridation, we should ask who's profiting? Did Halliburton get billion dollar contracts to put fluoride in our water supply? I don't think so. Conspiracy theorist should look elsewhere. Or relax watching Doctor Strangelove (has a good example of a fluoride-conspiracy theorist).

"Fluoride therapy is commonly practiced and generally agreed upon as being useful in the modern dental field. Fluoride combats the formation of tooth decay primarily in three ways:
Fluoride promotes the remineralization of teeth, by enhancing the tooth remineralization process. Fluoride found in saliva will absorb into the surface of a tooth where demineralization has occurred. The presence of this fluoride in turn attracts other minerals (such as calcium), thus resulting in the formation of new tooth mineral.
Fluoride can make a tooth more resistant to the formation of tooth decay. The new tooth mineral that is created by the remineralization process in the presence of fluoride is actually a "harder" mineral compound than existed when the tooth initially formed. Teeth are generally composed of hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite. Fluorapatite is created during the remineralization process when fluoride is present and is more resistant to dissolution by acids (demineralization).
Fluoride can inhibit oral bacteria's ability to create acids. Fluoride decreases the rate at which the bacteria that live in dental plaque can produce acid by disrupting the bacteria and its ability to metabolize sugars. The less sugar the bacteria can consume, the less acidic waste which will be produced and participate in the demineralization process." (Thanks Wiki)

Inawe--

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.

It's obvious that no large amount of money is involved in the flouridation thing (compared to the 1/2 trillion we already spent in the Iraq caper). I don't want to look it up but I'm sure if Alcoa had to get rid of fluoride it'll be cheaper for them to bury it. You wrote "It is illegal to dump in the ocean for a reason". If the government wanted to accommodate Alcoa they would let them dump it anywhere, don't you think?
As an outsider, it looks to me that some time ago, dentists and other health professionals, noticed that children who grew up with enough flouride had stronger teeth. So they recommended to put it in the water. Just a little bit. Too much will be harmful. That's why the guys in charge of putting it in the water have to wear protective suits (no brainer).
Right now vitamin D is very popular, lots of benefits. Most people don't get enough. If it's decided to put some low concentration in the water a few conspiracy theorist will start to scream, yell and blog.
There is a danger when we start to support the professional conspiracy theorist. Then, when we do have some legitimate issue, we don't have any credibility left.

[mike250]

One can find many examples of shenanigans in the health care field. They always can be traced to unethical profiting. So, in the case of fluoride or fluoridation, we should ask who's profiting? Did Halliburton get billion dollar contracts to put fluoride in our water supply? I don't think so. Conspiracy theorist should look elsewhere. Or relax watching Doctor Strangelove (has a good example of a fluoride-conspiracy theorist).

"Fluoride therapy is commonly practiced and generally agreed upon as being useful in the modern dental field. Fluoride combats the formation of tooth decay primarily in three ways:
Fluoride promotes the remineralization of teeth, by enhancing the tooth remineralization process. Fluoride found in saliva will absorb into the surface of a tooth where demineralization has occurred. The presence of this fluoride in turn attracts other minerals (such as calcium), thus resulting in the formation of new tooth mineral.
Fluoride can make a tooth more resistant to the formation of tooth decay. The new tooth mineral that is created by the remineralization process in the presence of fluoride is actually a "harder" mineral compound than existed when the tooth initially formed. Teeth are generally composed of hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite. Fluorapatite is created during the remineralization process when fluoride is present and is more resistant to dissolution by acids (demineralization).
Fluoride can inhibit oral bacteria's ability to create acids. Fluoride decreases the rate at which the bacteria that live in dental plaque can produce acid by disrupting the bacteria and its ability to metabolize sugars. The less sugar the bacteria can consume, the less acidic waste which will be produced and participate in the demineralization process." (Thanks Wiki)

Inawe--

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.

It's obvious that no large amount of money is involved in the flouridation thing (compared to the 1/2 trillion we already spent in the Iraq caper). I don't want to look it up but I'm sure if Alcoa had to get rid of fluoride it'll be cheaper for them to bury it. You wrote "It is illegal to dump in the ocean for a reason". If the government wanted to accommodate Alcoa they would let them dump it anywhere, don't you think?
As an outsider, it looks to me that some time ago, dentists and other health professionals, noticed that children who grew up with enough flouride had stronger teeth. So they recommended to put it in the water. Just a little bit. Too much will be harmful. That's why the guys in charge of putting it in the water have to wear protective suits (no brainer).
Right now vitamin D is very popular, lots of benefits. Most people don't get enough. If it's decided to put some low concentration in the water a few conspiracy theorist will start to scream, yell and blog.
There is a danger when we start to support the professional conspiracy theorist. Then, when we do have some legitimate issue, we don't have any credibility left.

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.

[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.

[niner]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

Not all dentist are in favor of it, and not everything they put in toothpaste is good for you, even if flouride is or not, so that argument too is weak:) Oh and the flouride that is found in tea, is different form than what they put in the drinking water. Not sure which form they put in toothpaste tho, i'm not really that passionate about this subject to research it more, as i feel what you do with your body is your business, just as long as i don't have to be a part of it.

I've never met a dentist who opposed fluoride. I imagine there are a few out there though. I do know some very smart dentists, and they like fluoride.

The fluoride in tea, toothpaste, and water is all the same stuff. It's all fluoride ion, with a -1 charge. The charge will be balanced by a positive counterion, which is usually sodium, though it could be other things, but they are not attached in solution. It's all just fluoride.

Tea concentrates fluoride from the soil. Whether or not it's "organic" tea has nothing to do with it. If you grew the tea in some sort of soil mixture that had zero fluoride, then it would be fluoride free, but I don't know if it's that easy to find soil with zero fluoride that is also good for tea growing.

[senseix]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

Not all dentist are in favor of it, and not everything they put in toothpaste is good for you, even if flouride is or not, so that argument too is weak:) Oh and the flouride that is found in tea, is different form than what they put in the drinking water. Not sure which form they put in toothpaste tho, i'm not really that passionate about this subject to research it more, as i feel what you do with your body is your business, just as long as i don't have to be a part of it.

I've never met a dentist who opposed fluoride. I imagine there are a few out there though. I do know some very smart dentists, and they like fluoride.

The fluoride in tea, toothpaste, and water is all the same stuff. It's all fluoride ion, with a -1 charge. The charge will be balanced by a positive counterion, which is usually sodium, though it could be other things, but they are not attached in solution. It's all just fluoride.

Tea concentrates fluoride from the soil. Whether or not it's "organic" tea has nothing to do with it. If you grew the tea in some sort of soil mixture that had zero fluoride, then it would be fluoride free, but I don't know if it's that easy to find soil with zero fluoride that is also good for tea growing.

Looks like the same flouride used in water is the same as the one in toothpaste. I'm no scientist nor did i do studies, but there are two types that i know of. What about this dentist who speaks out against it, and he's not the only dentist i've read do this.

http://www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm


http://www.rawfoodin...offluoride.html

It is important to understand that there are two different types of fluoride. The naturally occurring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is not toxic, but this form of fluoride is not used to fluoridate water, and is not used in toothpaste.

The salts used to fluoridate your water supply, sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid, are industrial by-products that are so notoriously toxic that they are used in rat poison and insecticides. This is the fluoride that is used in your water supply, and when we refer to fluoride in the rest of this article we are referring to sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid.

Edited by senseix, 28 February 2008 - 06:18 AM.

[mike250]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

Not all dentist are in favor of it, and not everything they put in toothpaste is good for you, even if flouride is or not, so that argument too is weak:) Oh and the flouride that is found in tea, is different form than what they put in the drinking water. Not sure which form they put in toothpaste tho, i'm not really that passionate about this subject to research it more, as i feel what you do with your body is your business, just as long as i don't have to be a part of it.

I've never met a dentist who opposed fluoride. I imagine there are a few out there though. I do know some very smart dentists, and they like fluoride.

The fluoride in tea, toothpaste, and water is all the same stuff. It's all fluoride ion, with a -1 charge. The charge will be balanced by a positive counterion, which is usually sodium, though it could be other things, but they are not attached in solution. It's all just fluoride.

Tea concentrates fluoride from the soil. Whether or not it's "organic" tea has nothing to do with it. If you grew the tea in some sort of soil mixture that had zero fluoride, then it would be fluoride free, but I don't know if it's that easy to find soil with zero fluoride that is also good for tea growing.

Looks like the same flouride used in water is the same as the one in toothpaste. I'm no scientist nor did i do studies, but there are two types that i know of. What about this dentist who speaks out against it, and he's not the only dentist i've read do this.

http://www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm


http://www.rawfoodin...offluoride.html

It is important to understand that there are two different types of fluoride. The naturally occurring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is not toxic, but this form of fluoride is not used to fluoridate water, and is not used in toothpaste.

The salts used to fluoridate your water supply, sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid, are industrial by-products that are so notoriously toxic that they are used in rat poison and insecticides. This is the fluoride that is used in your water supply, and when we refer to fluoride in the rest of this article we are referring to sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid.

my toothpaste has sodium mono-fluoro-phosphate as one of the ingredients. hmm

[senseix]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

Not all dentist are in favor of it, and not everything they put in toothpaste is good for you, even if flouride is or not, so that argument too is weak:) Oh and the flouride that is found in tea, is different form than what they put in the drinking water. Not sure which form they put in toothpaste tho, i'm not really that passionate about this subject to research it more, as i feel what you do with your body is your business, just as long as i don't have to be a part of it.

I've never met a dentist who opposed fluoride. I imagine there are a few out there though. I do know some very smart dentists, and they like fluoride.

The fluoride in tea, toothpaste, and water is all the same stuff. It's all fluoride ion, with a -1 charge. The charge will be balanced by a positive counterion, which is usually sodium, though it could be other things, but they are not attached in solution. It's all just fluoride.

Tea concentrates fluoride from the soil. Whether or not it's "organic" tea has nothing to do with it. If you grew the tea in some sort of soil mixture that had zero fluoride, then it would be fluoride free, but I don't know if it's that easy to find soil with zero fluoride that is also good for tea growing.

Looks like the same flouride used in water is the same as the one in toothpaste. I'm no scientist nor did i do studies, but there are two types that i know of. What about this dentist who speaks out against it, and he's not the only dentist i've read do this.

http://www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm


http://www.rawfoodin...offluoride.html

It is important to understand that there are two different types of fluoride. The naturally occurring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is not toxic, but this form of fluoride is not used to fluoridate water, and is not used in toothpaste.

The salts used to fluoridate your water supply, sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid, are industrial by-products that are so notoriously toxic that they are used in rat poison and insecticides. This is the fluoride that is used in your water supply, and when we refer to fluoride in the rest of this article we are referring to sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid.

my toothpaste has sodium mono-fluoro-phosphate as one of the ingredients. hmm

Yeah mine does too, tho i do have a natural one that i use sometimes, but to be honest it doesn't clean for me as well as the crest total that i use. I really don't have a problem with sodium flouride being in my toothpaste because i spit most of it out anyways, its the water supply i have issue with, tho i do have a in home water filter that takes out most of the flouride in the water, still having to do that when i could be focusing on other things in life is to me silly:)

Edited by senseix, 28 February 2008 - 09:47 AM.

[mike250]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

Not all dentist are in favor of it, and not everything they put in toothpaste is good for you, even if flouride is or not, so that argument too is weak:) Oh and the flouride that is found in tea, is different form than what they put in the drinking water. Not sure which form they put in toothpaste tho, i'm not really that passionate about this subject to research it more, as i feel what you do with your body is your business, just as long as i don't have to be a part of it.

I've never met a dentist who opposed fluoride. I imagine there are a few out there though. I do know some very smart dentists, and they like fluoride.

The fluoride in tea, toothpaste, and water is all the same stuff. It's all fluoride ion, with a -1 charge. The charge will be balanced by a positive counterion, which is usually sodium, though it could be other things, but they are not attached in solution. It's all just fluoride.

Tea concentrates fluoride from the soil. Whether or not it's "organic" tea has nothing to do with it. If you grew the tea in some sort of soil mixture that had zero fluoride, then it would be fluoride free, but I don't know if it's that easy to find soil with zero fluoride that is also good for tea growing.

Looks like the same flouride used in water is the same as the one in toothpaste. I'm no scientist nor did i do studies, but there are two types that i know of. What about this dentist who speaks out against it, and he's not the only dentist i've read do this.

http://www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm


http://www.rawfoodin...offluoride.html

It is important to understand that there are two different types of fluoride. The naturally occurring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is not toxic, but this form of fluoride is not used to fluoridate water, and is not used in toothpaste.

The salts used to fluoridate your water supply, sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid, are industrial by-products that are so notoriously toxic that they are used in rat poison and insecticides. This is the fluoride that is used in your water supply, and when we refer to fluoride in the rest of this article we are referring to sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid.

my toothpaste has sodium mono-fluoro-phosphate as one of the ingredients. hmm

Yeah mine does too, tho i do have a natural one that i use sometimes, but to be honest it doesn't clean for me as well as the crest total that i use. I really don't have a problem with sodium flouride being in my toothpaste because i spit most of it out anyways, its the water supply i have issue with, tho i do have a in home water filter that takes out most of the flouride in the water, still having to do that when i could be focusing on other things in life is to me silly:)

My toothpaste is senodyne. I also have a home water filter. how often do you get it replaced with a new one ?

[dannov]

I understand your point about Conspiracy Theorism, but I do not agree that Fluoridation being a bad thing is a conspiracy theory. There is a lot of evidence out there.

As for the government thing--you're not allowed to dump it into the ocean because we don't own the ocean, it's international waters. Our freshwater supplies are ours to use and abuse, and abuse we do. I'm not sure of the cost involved without actually contacting an aluminum manufacturer and asking them for a ballpark estimate on the cost of fluoride disposal should they not be allowed to dump it into water supplies. As was pointed out as well, Fluoride's benefits are purportedly topical, and not systemic. We don't drink water and swish it around our teeth like mouthwash. Also, I personally find it rather naive to honestly think that the government cares enough about us to make sure we get our daily dose of fluoride when you consider how much Americans have been getting screwed over since 1913 by our government.

[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.

Edited by mike250, 28 February 2008 - 03:10 PM.

[inawe]

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).

[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

Edited by mike250, 28 February 2008 - 04:05 PM.

[mike250]

One can find many examples of shenanigans in the health care field. They always can be traced to unethical profiting. So, in the case of fluoride or fluoridation, we should ask who's profiting? Did Halliburton get billion dollar contracts to put fluoride in our water supply? I don't think so. Conspiracy theorist should look elsewhere. Or relax watching Doctor Strangelove (has a good example of a fluoride-conspiracy theorist).

"Fluoride therapy is commonly practiced and generally agreed upon as being useful in the modern dental field. Fluoride combats the formation of tooth decay primarily in three ways:
Fluoride promotes the remineralization of teeth, by enhancing the tooth remineralization process. Fluoride found in saliva will absorb into the surface of a tooth where demineralization has occurred. The presence of this fluoride in turn attracts other minerals (such as calcium), thus resulting in the formation of new tooth mineral.
Fluoride can make a tooth more resistant to the formation of tooth decay. The new tooth mineral that is created by the remineralization process in the presence of fluoride is actually a "harder" mineral compound than existed when the tooth initially formed. Teeth are generally composed of hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite. Fluorapatite is created during the remineralization process when fluoride is present and is more resistant to dissolution by acids (demineralization).
Fluoride can inhibit oral bacteria's ability to create acids. Fluoride decreases the rate at which the bacteria that live in dental plaque can produce acid by disrupting the bacteria and its ability to metabolize sugars. The less sugar the bacteria can consume, the less acidic waste which will be produced and participate in the demineralization process." (Thanks Wiki)

The issue here is with the delivery method: is water fluoridation necessary given the other methods of Fluoride delivery which include: ''Toothpaste, Mouth rinses, Gels/foams, Varnish and dietary fluoride supplements''.

Edited by mike250, 28 February 2008 - 04:40 PM.

[senseix]

Again, fluoride is a by-product of aluminum that is costly to dispose of. Early studies that "showed" fluoride to be good for health were completely backed by the aluminum industry. They obviously had something to gain by making up their own brand of dental science. Fluoride doesn't grow on trees or graze plains, it's a chemical that isn't naturally consumed by any species on this planet. It was used as a rat poison before it was thrown in our water supplies under false pretenses. Also, as pointed out in one of the links that I've provided, there were also large amounts of Magnesium and Calcium in the water supplies that naturally had Fluoride in them in the early 1900s when people that were drinking from that supply were found to have better teeth.

If fluoride isn't good for teeth, why is it put in toothpaste, pray tell? Why are dentists in favor of it? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Do you drink tea?

Not all dentist are in favor of it, and not everything they put in toothpaste is good for you, even if flouride is or not, so that argument too is weak:) Oh and the flouride that is found in tea, is different form than what they put in the drinking water. Not sure which form they put in toothpaste tho, i'm not really that passionate about this subject to research it more, as i feel what you do with your body is your business, just as long as i don't have to be a part of it.

I've never met a dentist who opposed fluoride. I imagine there are a few out there though. I do know some very smart dentists, and they like fluoride.

The fluoride in tea, toothpaste, and water is all the same stuff. It's all fluoride ion, with a -1 charge. The charge will be balanced by a positive counterion, which is usually sodium, though it could be other things, but they are not attached in solution. It's all just fluoride.

Tea concentrates fluoride from the soil. Whether or not it's "organic" tea has nothing to do with it. If you grew the tea in some sort of soil mixture that had zero fluoride, then it would be fluoride free, but I don't know if it's that easy to find soil with zero fluoride that is also good for tea growing.

Looks like the same flouride used in water is the same as the one in toothpaste. I'm no scientist nor did i do studies, but there are two types that i know of. What about this dentist who speaks out against it, and he's not the only dentist i've read do this.

http://www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm


http://www.rawfoodin...offluoride.html

It is important to understand that there are two different types of fluoride. The naturally occurring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is not toxic, but this form of fluoride is not used to fluoridate water, and is not used in toothpaste.

The salts used to fluoridate your water supply, sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid, are industrial by-products that are so notoriously toxic that they are used in rat poison and insecticides. This is the fluoride that is used in your water supply, and when we refer to fluoride in the rest of this article we are referring to sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid.

my toothpaste has sodium mono-fluoro-phosphate as one of the ingredients. hmm

Yeah mine does too, tho i do have a natural one that i use sometimes, but to be honest it doesn't clean for me as well as the crest total that i use. I really don't have a problem with sodium flouride being in my toothpaste because i spit most of it out anyways, its the water supply i have issue with, tho i do have a in home water filter that takes out most of the flouride in the water, still having to do that when i could be focusing on other things in life is to me silly:)

My toothpaste is senodyne. I also have a home water filter. how often do you get it replaced with a new one ?

I have a Crystal Quest, Counter Top 8 Stage Flouride removal filter system. Its 3 large filters basically, i replace them once a year, tho i am sure i could go 2 years. The cost is about $130.00 a year:)

[krillin]

Also, I personally find it rather naive to honestly think that the government cares enough about us to make sure we get our daily dose of fluoride when you consider how much Americans have been getting screwed over since 1913 by our government.

If you're going to be this cynical, at least try to be smart about it. The government needs to keep the population healthy so that plenty of taxes can be harvested. It also needs to be kept healthy enough to provide cannon fodder. The RDAs were instituted because the WWII draftees were in such horrible shape. You were considered fit if you had just 12 teeth. Bribes from Alcoa can't possibly compete with the benefits of a good quality herd of sheep.

Relying on topical fluoride alone is likely futile. It only closed the gap from 25% to 18% in this study comparing fluoridated to non-fluoridated communities.

J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; discussion 820-3.
Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP.
Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.

The decline in dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren, first observed nationwide in 1979-1980, was confirmed further by a second national epidemiological survey completed in 1987. Mean DMFS scores in persons aged 5-17 years had decreased about 36% during the interval, and, in 1987, approximately 50% of children were caries-free in the permanent dentition. Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS scores about 18% lower than those who had never lived in fluoridated communities. When some of the "background" effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.

PMID: 2312893

Calcium fluoride is similar in bioavailability to sodium fluoride, and since they're both absorbed as fluoride ions, they should be treated the same. Green tea's fluoride bioavailability is a little lower than that of the two salts. Food bioavailability is much lower, but nowhere near negligible. If you're scared of one, you have to be scared of all of them.

http://jn.nutrition....eprint/22/6/621

[senseix]

Also, I personally find it rather naive to honestly think that the government cares enough about us to make sure we get our daily dose of fluoride when you consider how much Americans have been getting screwed over since 1913 by our government.

If you're going to be this cynical, at least try to be smart about it. The government needs to keep the population healthy so that plenty of taxes can be harvested. It also needs to be kept healthy enough to provide cannon fodder. The RDAs were instituted because the WWII draftees were in such horrible shape. You were considered fit if you had just 12 teeth. Bribes from Alcoa can't possibly compete with the benefits of a good quality herd of sheep.

Relying on topical fluoride alone is likely futile. It only closed the gap from 25% to 18% in this study comparing fluoridated to non-fluoridated communities.

J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; discussion 820-3.
Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP.
Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.

The decline in dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren, first observed nationwide in 1979-1980, was confirmed further by a second national epidemiological survey completed in 1987. Mean DMFS scores in persons aged 5-17 years had decreased about 36% during the interval, and, in 1987, approximately 50% of children were caries-free in the permanent dentition. Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS scores about 18% lower than those who had never lived in fluoridated communities. When some of the "background" effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.

PMID: 2312893

Calcium fluoride is similar in bioavailability to sodium fluoride, and since they're both absorbed as fluoride ions, they should be treated the same. Green tea's fluoride bioavailability is a little lower than that of the two salts. Food bioavailability is much lower, but nowhere near negligible. If you're scared of one, you have to be scared of all of them.

http://jn.nutrition....eprint/22/6/621

For one i'm not scared, and again i just don't agree with you, to not like one, doesn't mean i don't like the other:) here is why smarty pants LOL

1. The sodium version is in water, the Calcium version isn't:)
2. No one is pushing the Calcium version as great for dumping in water, but the Sodium version is being pushed, like your doing.
3. You act like everyone here drinks green tea, i don't, oh ok i've drank it a few times in a year, that is a huge difference then having it my water daily all day long as i drink a gallon per day:(
4. I don't act like i need to eliminate every chemical in foods, and water to feel safe, i do act like Sodium Flouride in water, is an old school, unintelligent belief that needs to be adjusted to today's science, kind of like the low fat, high carb diets, Smoking lol give me a break man the goverment, and just about everyone else "making a profit" pushes all kinds of things in our history, i guess your not into history u prefer to read about today and now check out the past through the past 100 years, unless you're blind or just that stubborn you will find easily cases where the goverment allowed, pushed things into our food supply, drinking and other environmental factors that harmed people.
5. I don't think anyone here said that the goverment is trying to kill off it's tax payers, but will they push something that is harmful "not enough to kill instant but over time?" you bet they would, after you reach the age of 65, i believe they would rather u did die, so they don't have to pay social security, and i'm sure other reasons like you're not as productive as a citizen as you were in your younger years.
6. The fact is some dentists, agree flouride in water is a hazard, you want to not think they're just as intelligent as the ones who don't agree? I would like to think those guys who don't agree have more of an open mind, and don't listen to just what they were tought, but think outside the box, something that America is known for, unless you don't agree with the goverment, or other powerful interests, then people like yourself who do follow in line jump on the band wagon, tho there has been atleast in my view plenty of proof since the early 1900's that our goverment has been screwing us time after time. Sad you can't see it, oh well, can't save you all:)

Edited by senseix, 29 February 2008 - 12:42 AM.

[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.