Hey, those ARE chemicals.
Anytime I hear someone say that they want to get food or whatever without chemicals, I always make it a point to say that EVERYTHING we eat or drink is made of chemicals. Sometimes they just don’t get the point and move on, sometimes it leads to a discussion of what they really intended to be saying, and whether that has merit. It’s usually the naturalistic fallacy wrapped up in sloppy wording.
As I stated, all of the studies cited on that page are readily available (full text on-line usually for a fee or, often, in the journals where they first appeared at your local library for free) and I simply linked to that page as a summary of more recent peer reviewed papers on the issue.
I was not suggesting anyone accept the editorializing on that site at face value.
You can follow the links or look them up on Medline or another similar resource… a summary of methodolgy, results, and authors’ conclusions is typically available free of charge, but for many, reading (or linking to) the full text on-line requires payment and access expires after a set, brief period. (as anyone who has actually done any such research recently is well aware).
The rec. that people continue to be exposed to small amounts of fluoride regularly does not contradict the conclusion that it is TOPICAL exposure which is the primary mechanism involved; drinking fluoridated water provides topical exposures as the water comes into contact with the teeth.
The point that ingesting fluoride is unneccesary and potentially harmful (esp. given the differences in dosage depending upon other exposures and individual vulnerability) remains.
Yes, in places where naturally ocurring fluoride in the water supply exceeds doses considered safe, it is a health hazard and should be purified out or not consumed.
Lest we forget that the discovery of such naturally fluoridated water supplies came about as a result of research into the abysmal dental health of populations chronically exposed to naturally high levels. (“Colorado Brown Tooth”).
As for the book, it is merely an interesting relic I picked up years ago, mainly for the worth of having a verbatim transcript of the hearings in question.
Oh yes, I know; WATER is toxic at certain dosages and “without chemicals, life itself would be impossible!”. And Oh, my favorite; water is toxic waste, since it also is used in industrial applications. OK, whatever, and trees are technically the biggest producers of air pollution on the planet. :rolleyes:
And that continual low-level exposure to fluoride and beneficial effect on teeth is what water fluoridation makes possible.
Again, wrong. It’s necessary to have fluoridated water for optimal beneficial effects on dental health. The “potential harm” is something that’s been screamed about by antifluoridationists for decades, in the absence of evidence, and in the face of demonstrated beneficial effects.
This statement doesn’t make sense. If it’s OK to have natural fluoride in the water where it doesn’t exceed doses considered safe, then why isn’t it OK to add fluoride to the water at levels within the range considered safe? Sounds like you’re buying into the idea that naturally fluoridated water is somehow different than water with added fluoride. Not so.
Incorrect. The discovery of fluoride’s anti-cavity effect was discovered precisely because those people drinking water naturally high in fluoride had good dental health with low incidence of cavities. They had stained teeth where natural fluoride levels were high, but those teeth were otherwise healthy. Further investigation revealed the level at which there was optimal dental caries prevention without staining of teeth, and it’s at that level that municipal water supplies are fluoridated.
If you’re aware of the silliness of referring to common substances as “toxic” without relation to dosage, then why engage in the silliness of damning something as ubiquitous as fluoride as a “toxin” and “industrial waste” without regard to level of exposure?
Good, because the editorializing of the first few is misleading at best, flat out wrong at worst, and based on history, intentionally so. The studies don’t support any of the conclusions that fluoridated water is bad for you.
It’s a bad cite.
The site fluoridealert.org contains a “professionals”’ statement against fluoridation. It’s revealing to see the names of the signers. There are relatively few dentists on the list. It looks like considerably more alt med practitioners (especially chiropractors) have signed it, along with numerous other people who have no listed training or degrees in dental science or public health.
Among the signees are Ralph Moss (who promotes the idea that the “cancer industry” suppresses/ignores alleged cures like laetrile), Joseph Mercola (a D.O. who’s a purveyor of various sorts of quackery including anti-vaccination views) and Boyd Haley (a chemistry professor at the University of Kentucky who’s also a figure in the antivax movement and who’s involved in selling an industrial chelating agent to parents of autistic children who think they’re “vaccine-damaged”).
Truly, the principle of crank magnetism is at work here.
Funny you should mention that, since oxygen is one of the most hardcore oxidants out there (hence, y’know, the name). Too much oxygen in the air, and we’d all die.
Of course, the whole idea that forests are “the planet’s lungs” and net producers of oxygen is bullshit, but…
I’m not too worried about flouride.
I am however frustrated that the same health officials who promote’ sugar in moderation’ as perfectly healthy think treating the symptoms of rampant tooth decay with flouridation and external dental care, rather than even mentioning the causes and prevention, is going to solve the problem.
Sugars and starches are the cause of tooth decay, which seems to be a little-known fact. Genetics (some teeth are much more sensitive) and general poor diet (inadequate vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids) also contribute to dental disease of course, and even here in America a majority (a vast majority by some estimates) do not get enough calcium or vitamin D, essential for proper tooth developement and health. But if there isn’t sugar and starch in your mouth, the bacteria that thrive on it can’t a) produce the acidic waste which rots your teeth and b) reproduce and live in large populations within the mouth, producing even more acid after they feed. If we want better teeth as a country, they should be telling us to lay off the juice, soda, energy drinks, sugared coffee, etc which so many babies, children and adults sip constantly throughout the day (in addition to the starch and sugars from foods), bathing their teeth in surge after surge of acidic bacterium-piss. It’s no wonder that even in this country with great dental care and a high aesthetic value on teeth, 30% of those 65 and over don’t have a single tooth left.
Note my earlier, completely anecdotal, post: I grew up pre-fluoridation for 1/4 my long life and have a mouthful of antique amalgam, while my kids, whose oral hygiene regimen is worse than mine, but who grew up drinking fluoridated water with diets as poor as mine, have pristine teeth. No cavities. None. The studies are more scientific than this, but they say much the same thing.
And please spell out the maladies my kids and I have endured because of our exposure to fluorine.
Please direct objections to the studies cited, NOT the site. Come on people, you are behaving no better than those who would reject out of hand any citation included on a PRO fluoridation site. :dubious:
My intent was never to endorse any particular site or editorial content (other than my own, which I’ve already offered)…I simply chose one (at random via a search) which consolidated quite a few relevant links to peer-reviewed sources on the topic related to points I had raised.
And try to focus (I know it is difficult due to the neurological effects of fluoride exposure 
A JOKE :rolleyes:); I am not suggesting any of the cites conclude (insert retarded Frankenstein voice-over here:rolleyes:)“fluoride BaaaD!” :eek:…just that they contain information relevant to my points.
As many “unknowns” or “possibles” or “inconclusives” in studies cited by those in favor of fluoridation (here and elsewhere) as in any of those I linked to.
By all means, read the full text. And read critically. Always my practice. How about some challenges to the methodology or sources of the citations themselves, instead of attacks on those who’ve added their names to some list of anti’s on the site?
The citations provide evidence (as requested) in support of some of my points, such as the potentially toxic nature of fluoride when relatively low levels are exceeded.
And the fact that millions of people consuming fluoridated water are exposed to cumulative levels from all sources which exceed “safe” levels (legally defined as safe, though even the CDC concludes that the current maximum allowable levels in water ALONE are too high based on the science to date and should be reconsidered in light of the other exposures many are exposed to) which result in widespread fluorosis (fluoride poisoning).
And that topical application/exposure is the primary manner in which fluoride acts to bond with dental enamel.
We are NOT talking about chugging a few gallons in 10 minutes or drowning in the shit, folks, be REAL…5 mgs per kg of body weight is a potentially FATAL dose of fluoride (most tubes of toothpaste contain enough to kill a toddler), and chronic exposures a few times the “safe” levels in drinking water have been documented to cause skeletal deformities, fractures and irreversible dental damage.
I submit that fluoride is a BIT more “toxic” to the human body than H2O. Or OXYGEN, FTM. :rolleyes: We all seem to realize how idiotic Reagan’s statement regarding trees and “air pollution” was, but he was technically correct…IF we consider “air pollution” to mean ANY chemical substance emitted into the atmosphere and ALL such emissions to be equal wrt their impact on human health. 
My argument is that fluoridation of water supplies is, imo, a “bad thing” because:
*Fluoride IS, despite being the 13th most common substance in the crust of the earth, one of the most toxic to animal life based on minimum fatal dose in relation to body mass and severity of effects. Uranium is also a naturally occurring substance. So is lead. And arsenic. Hey, all natural! WTH are we worried about, right?
the dose is impossible to regulate with fluoridation of public water supplies given the cumulative nature of fluroride in the body and the multiple other exposures in the environment (read some of the studies cited, including the CDC link provided by another poster, as I did, to see the iffy nature of variable exposure rates)
some individuals are more vulnerable to fluorosis (ranging from “cosmetic” damage to severe dental and/or skeletal damage) depending upon factors not controlled for with mass, universal dosing, including genetics, body mass, water/other beverage consumption, other environmental exposures, and age.
AND because as a basic principle, universal, involuntary medication does not stand the test of sound ideology or science as far as I am concerned. (feel free to argue otherwise, as some already have…why not dose the public water supplies with antidepressants or Lipitor as well, considering the prevalence of the conditions involved? Well? The argument seems to be that it is possible and advisable to mass medicate for the greater good; can’t see why other forms of the practice couldn’t be justified using the same logic 
).
I completely agree that diet is vital to dental health. Even more vital than any topical treatments/practices.
Refined sugar and other refined carbs as well as a diet rich in cooked, soft foods as opposed to one of raw, harder foods, has been implicated in studies as a cause of dental malformations and disease, both upon the indivual and entire populations generationally.
Partly due to “topical” reasons and partly due to internal nutritional reasons. (i.e. not only does refined sugar on the surface of the teeth encourage the organisms which cause decay, it is a nutritional detriment which influences dental health from within. And raw, crisp/tough foods not only stimulate dental strength in the same way load bearing exercise does other bones, but tend to be richer in nutrients vital to skeletal health)
I’m sure my unfluoridated kids have enjoyed such great dental health due to their diet (and mine during pregnancy and breastfeeding). I was certainly raised on a lot of crap AND a lot of fluoride and had rotten teeth.
But I have been pretty fastidious about diet since I got on my own. And re’ theirs.
Jackmannii already pointed this out, but I think it needs to be emphasized.
The opposite of what you’ve said is true. The discovery of the benefits of fluoride came about precisely because of the excellent dental health of people who lived in areas with naturally high levels of fluoride.
We have done so. None of those studies demonstrate short or long-term detrimental health effects of having fluoridated water. If you disagree, show us which substantiate your accusations. Citing a list of papers that are peripheral to the matter of fluoridating water, irrelevant or of dubious quality reeks of the “Gish gallop” tactic common to such scaremongering sites. They hope that the sheer number of citations will convince people that there’s something to their arguments, and bog down opponents trying to counter each one.
Show us which of those papers document your claims.
Yes, you’re “just asking questions”. :rolleyes:
Will you concede that you are wrong about fluoridated water not benefiting adults, and that the CDC recommends it for all age groups?
Doesn’t your statement that naturally fluoridated water is of concern only if “safe” levels are exceeded, contradict your warnings about added fluoride kept within such recognized safe limits? What’s the difference between naturally fluoridated water and water with added fluoride? Is there some magical chemical difference we should know about?
What’s the relevance of your claim about Nazi mind control using fluoride? Are you suggesting that cities around the U.S. are engaging in mind control under the guise of securing better dental health?
What’s it going to take to get you to recognize that “the dose makes the poison”? If you continue to refuse to recognize this, have you taken steps to eliminate all foods and additives from your diet that contain elements listed in the periodic table?
Except that it’s been effectively regulated without the dread effects you keep postulating. Where are the epidemics of fluorosis and skeletal damage traceable to fluoridated water?
Leave out the “sound science” part (which is ludicrous) and we have an argument that at least can be extended to libertarians as well as crackpots (not that there isn’t considerable overlap between the two groups (see Ron Paul)). I’d gather from this that you also object to mandatory immunizations and any other public health measure for the benefit of all.
Cling to ideology if you wish, but don’t pretend that science is on your side.
As to diet, dentists and organizations such as the American Dental Association have long emphasized proper diet as a means of preventing decay and having healthy teeth (check the ADA website for more information). It’s a strawman argument to say that they are relying on fluoride alone to prevent cavities.
Holy crap! You saved my life. I was going to drink 350,000 liters of water today, I could have put myself in mortal danger.
Forget flouride-at that level of intake dihydrogen monoxide is much more dangerous.
This is an excellent point - discussions of toxicity without relating to dosage are irrelevant. There is a foofora going on right now about the toxin, acrylamide, in food. The science has gotten as far as acrylamide is a human toxin, but they don’t know at what dosage. This -
is nowhere near good enough to cause a panic over eating french fries. It’s dangerously close to junk science.