What doesn’t kill me makes my teeth stronger.
Don’t worry, Frank - you can always switch to all natural, chemical free salt.
I have no doubt that a tube of toothpaste can kill you, I just haven’t calculated the necessary velocity yet.
Then why do so many other developed nations continue to do it if that’s the case? Surely long term studies of dental health via flouridated water have been done within recent years. Why would these nations literally throw money down the drain augmenting the water with something that’s proven to be unnecessary and not beneficial?
It’s a good question. I would suggest it’s due to some combination of the following factors:
- All of the science behind water fluoridation is epidemiologic in nature, and epidemiologic evidence is notoriously difficult to interpret (very difficult to control for all of the confounders).
- Status quo bias.
- No real perceived harm. Dental fluorosis is common but it isn’t much of a concern since it’s mainly just a cosmetic issue.
Universal health care? There are families in the US that don’t go to the dentist because they don’t have a dental plan.
Not necessarily. I worked for a toxicologist, who would routinely use the word and he knew what he was talking about. Of course, we were talking about benzene, cyanide, and other things that will actually kill you or result in cancer.
I also deal with things like California’s Toxic Air Compound list, which (again) contains stuff that will kill you, cause chronic damage, or give you cancer. We’re still talking about things like mercury, benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and other things you don’t want to put up our nose.
This is a little outside my toxics wheelhouse, but I think there are other toxins that bioaccumulate, such as lead (which is probably used to sweeten those lovely Arsenic Treats) and DDT. Still, most toxics are either chemically changed by your body or excreted.
For practical purposes, there’s no restriction of whether it’s organic or not. There are metals on the EPA and California toxins lists. The most practical definition is “a substance that can cause harm in a dose that the subject is reasonably exposed to.” Yes, water will kill you if you consume enough, but it’s very unlikely. Same for salt. On the other hand, if you were exposed to a very small amount of ricin, you’d die, so ricin is toxic.
The “doesn’t kill me now, so I’m safe forever” approach really depends on the toxin. For some (cyanide, hydrogen sulfide), if you don’t die, you’re probably going to be okay. For carcinogens, the toxicological assumption is that effects are cumulative, so there’s really no safe exposure level. (We’ll avoid a pedantic discussion of safe harbor levels, the fact that you’re huffing carcinogens, and cumulative cancer risk for now.)
I’m done being pedantic, time to pit! In California we have a horrible piece of legislation called Proposition 65 that requires that places of business are required to post notification on places or products that exceed acceptable health risk or cancer risk levels. The intention is good, but it’s truly a useless piece of crap. If you don’t post a warning, you’re leaving yourself open to lawsuits from anybody with an axe to grind or anybody who actually thinks the flouride in the Crest at Safeway is toxic. You may fall in the safe harbor levels, but have fun fighting off the suit to prove you’re not trying to kill customers. If I owned a business, I’d post the warning no matter what, and I’m sure some businesses do. They don’t know that they have levels exceeding the safe harbor levels, but it’s easier to post the warning than to fight a suit and prove you’re within the safe harbor levels.
That’s all I got. I’m not very good at pitting, am I?
And that’s as good an answer as we are likely going to get, barring some solid science to back up flouridation.
But if flourinated (dated?) water doesn’t do anything, what does it have to do with UHC?
I bet you could choke on a tube of toothpaste, if you really tried.
You could probably be crushed if enough tubes of toothpaste fell on you.
Actually not. Most of the really toxic kinds of mercury are organic mercury compounds like dimethylmercury (killed a chemist who spilled some on a gloved hand) and methylmercury (the kind of mercury people worry about in fish). Elemental mercury isn’t really that toxic just on its own (except for mercury vapor); it tends to pass right through your body.
MSG is also an organic compound, it has carbon in it. Most of the MSG produced in the world is made by bacterial fermentation, in a process not unlike how products like wine, vinegar, and yogurt are made.
Anything can kill you if you ingest enough of it. Fortunately, for most things, that’s a comfortingly high quantity. I know that eating grilled steak can cause cancer because of the browned parts, but you’ll probably die of heart disease or old age long before that.
This is only further confirmation that a rare steak is a good steak.
Technically, “toxin” means “poison”. If you define “poison” as “any chemical which, if ingested/absorbed in enough amounts, may kill a human being”… well, that already-mentioned dihydrogen monoxide is still the most common substance in the human body! Run! RUN AWAAAAAY!
Which ones do?
Australia, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Singapore and the US are the only nations that fluoridate the majority of their drinking water supply. A few European countries fluoridate their table salt instead of their water.
The OP mentioned having to eat 16 tubes of toothpaste. Which I guess is fine if it’s something that can’t have accumulating effects, though it’s still a bit flippant to ridicule even a passing concern. But it was in reference to a carcinogen which does have possible long term exposure effects.
This seems to oversimplify the case, given that the idea of fluoridation of water came about because epidemiological studies noted a correlation between fluorides in the drinking water and a lower incidence of cavities. And it does appear that some fluorides do migrate into the saliva from the blood plasma, although it’s not clear to what extent that’s important compared to the topical effects of ingesting the stuff in the first place.
Great, now I’m craving an Aquafresh sandwich.
Maybe the countries with UHC that covers dental may have better dental health because more people can/do go to the dentist. Countries without UHC flouridate (that spelling does look better) the water so the people who can’t go to the dentist at least get some kind of dental care. Or we just don’t like change.
Or it’s the Illuminati!
I had my toothpaste confiscated by the TSA, so someone thinks it’s dangerous.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that if flourinating the water really doesn’t do anything, then why do it? It costs money. And if it really doesn’t do anything, then those people that don’t go to the dentist for whatever reason don’t get any dental care at all then other than brushing their teeth, right?