You know, if fluoride at a concentration in drinking water of 1 ppm is toxic, then how come there are no serious side effects when people ingest fluoride at a dose of 50 mg daily for 4 years? I take it as proof that fluoridation of drinking water is safe. (Here’s the full text of one study showing that fluoride treatment, at 50 mg daily for 4 years, was benign). There are many more in the literature also attesting to the safety of fluoride (at does of 20 to 60 mg daily for up to four years). Indeed, most of the studies examined fluoride treatment in elderly women or those with chronic inflammatory conditions such as Crohn’s Disease or Rheumatoid Arthritis. If anybody should be susceptible to adverse effects of such a “toxic” substance, it would be the elderly and the infirm.
Homoeopathy.
<d&r>
I thought I was a soclialist. It’s so confusing…
Lute, thanks for the Wikipedia link. Unfortunately, upon reading the Wiki entry on fluoridation, I find that the whole piece is riddled with the sort of vague speculation and questionable cites that seem to plague so much online fluoridation “information”.
The question remains, does the fluoride in most toothpastes come from factory/industrial by-products or not?
Understand, I’m not a zealot by any conventional yardstick, but when acquantainces make the “toothpaste fluoride comes from industrial waste” comment, it drives me absolutely batty that I can’t confirm or disprove it to a reasonable certainty.
Shouldn’t this be easy to determine? Why am I clenching my fists? Argh! 
It might be that they don’t give a source because it can come from any of several sources. Sodium floride is sodium floride whatever its source. Even if it comes from “industrial waste” so what? Until somebody discovered it could be added to ordinary detergent and marked up astronomically orange oil was a waste byproduct of the juicing process.
Not at all. Factory/industrial by-products contribute to water fluoridation, not toothpaste.
Clarification: the fluoride used in toothpaste isn’t from the bugaboos that the anti-flouirde people usually bandy about.
Emphasis added.
Here’s a study showing a higher incidence of nonvertebral fractures among the elderly treated with 75 mg of sodium fluoride per day.
The dose makes the poison.
Indeed, but that’s old news. Paradoxically, although fluoride treatment in such doses increases bone density, the bone so formed is structurally weaker. Of course, none of this has anything to do with fluoride ingestion at 1 ppm water.
Who funds your paper?
This is the “party-line” response to the flouride story.
Educate yourself man!
Start looking into real (and traceable research) revealing the truth about his highly noxious cocktail we have been force-fed.
Cyanide anyone? How about genocide? Uh, the euphemism is eugenics…
Hello. I’m late joining with this as I’ve just found this board. However, flurride addition to water has been cited as one of the main culprits in the huge rise in hypothyroidism within the US and other countries that add flouride to water.
The US medical bods are considering lowering the levels within the lab tests for thyroid problems, which would mean that around one in three people would be classified as hypothyroid in the US. This is also partly down to the lack of selenium in the US diet (from over farming - Selenium should be in the grains we eat but isn’t any more because the ground has been ravaged) too, but the Fluoride, being a poison, is also partly responsible.
One site I like is here: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride.htm
But google for hypothyroidism and fluoride and the results are scary… thought you might have had depression? Think again!
Welcome! I agree 100%.
A good number of dudes are also sensitive to Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), which can cause canker sores in quite a few people. Some think it cause worse stuff (like cancer) but that is doubtful. In any case, it has no real use in toothpaste (it makes it foam better so the consumer is happier :rolleyes: ) and it causes painful mounth ulcers in a significant % of the population.
All of this toothpaste talk has me honestly wondering… What is the best toothpaste from a non-commercial standpoint? i.e. - salt versus baking soda? Does baking soda really do that good of a job? Why on earth use salt? What about those (ugh!) scholls of thought that advocate your own urine as a tooth cleaner? Mainly I am interested in what is known about salt versus baking soda here. If I hear any more about flouride I believe I shall drop a 50 lb bag of it on my head from a great hieght and hope to hell that solves any further thought (at least from my part) about it!
Cheers!
One final thing. You should not cover the entire top of your brush with an inch long strip of toothpaste. That’s a waste, and they show that to make you think that’s the right amount. You only need a drop about the size of a pea.
Inotek37- I’d say- brush with baking soda, and rinse with salt water.
I am not a dentist.
I had really hoped that when I joined these message boards, I would find people who have an intellect geared toward true research, and not just accepting whatever government wonks and organizations tell them. It has surprised me to find the depth of shallowness that the majority of posters aspire to. And the rudeness. I am quite surprised to see it led by the moderator.
Anyway, here is a wasted link that is from a current article by an MD and University professor that gives an excellent overview of the fluoride debate, including all the references one could need. However, eveidently on this site, scientific references don’t mean as much as nahnee, nahnee, nah, nah.
You are aware that dialysis centers are required to use purified water to keep their license, right? Your statement was a fact decades ago, but not now.
So, a hack piece by a cardiac surgeon is considered by you a scientific reference.
Please!
He’s no more qualified to present cites than I am by Googling. His opinions are just that.
I guess as the highly qualified moderator you are unable to recognize the multitude of references he gave. And you calling someone with his qualifications a hack is about as hilarious as it gets. I suppose you’re a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist. If you were, you’d still be using stone tools.
Of course, from now on, I will come to you for wisdom on all these subjects since you can neener, neener, neener all these scientific people so well.
NO, actually, I have a BS in Chemistry. So, your cardiac surgeon is my inferior.
He did, indeed, post some cites. I read some of them. I’m familiar with many of them. Biased.
I’m sure you mean well, but cites that only offer the same ole/same ole are tiring.
This fluoride discussion has proven beyond frustrating for me.
Fluoride has always been a bone of contention between several of my friends and I, largely because I resist their claim that the fluoride in most drinking water is a by-product of industrial waste. (Thanks for addressing the issue of fluoride in toothpaste, Lute.) I’m not saying they’re wrong—only that I’ve never had it conclusively confirmed or disproved.
Cecil has never addressed this issue head-on, and I hoped that this message board would offer some insight. What invariably happens, though, is that when the issue is reduced to a few point-blank, yes-or-no questions, things peter out almost immediately. (Or I’m pointed to a Wiki entry whose impartiality is being officially disputed.)
Since the internet is a veritable haystack when it comes to fluoride screeds, I was hoping to find the Straight Dope on the issue here. So…I’ll try once more, and please, I don’t have a vested interest in the answer—I just want to know. (I hate nagging, unanswered questions.)
-
Is the fluoride in most American drinking water a by-product of industrial waste, yes or no?
-
Since we live in the most litigious country on Earth (a country where handgun manufacturers have been prosecuted for handgun murders) where is the huge class-action suit against fluoride? I mean, the evidence is all, you know, conclusive and everything, right? If spilled McDonald’s coffee can result in a massive jury award, shouldn’t this be a cake walk? And I’m not talking about attempted lawsuits or small cases, I mean a successful suit on a huge scale.
Direct answers to the above two questions are welcomed, from both sides.