Fluoride in the water, Windsor Ontario votes to stop fluoridation.

OG_slinger wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

O_o Yes, chemicals. Chemicals are bad. I, for one, am absolutely against carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, magnesium, iron, calcium... and all of the other chemicals, too.

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AED9cl5scbI/TkPAvS604BI/AAAAAAAAACo/YCkxjbK1Xo0/s1600/Ban-Dihydrogen-Monoxide-debate-8642860-450-450.gif)

DHMO can actually kill you. It's super dangerous, just like that scary fluoride! I read it on the internet!

Farscry wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

O_o Yes, chemicals. Chemicals are bad. I, for one, am absolutely against carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, magnesium, iron, calcium... and all of the other chemicals, too.

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AED9cl5scbI/TkPAvS604BI/AAAAAAAAACo/YCkxjbK1Xo0/s1600/Ban-Dihydrogen-Monoxide-debate-8642860-450-450.gif)

DHMO can actually kill you. It's super dangerous, just like that scary fluoride! I read it on the internet!

And it's in your house right now!

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Farscry wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

O_o Yes, chemicals. Chemicals are bad. I, for one, am absolutely against carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, magnesium, iron, calcium... and all of the other chemicals, too.

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AED9cl5scbI/TkPAvS604BI/AAAAAAAAACo/YCkxjbK1Xo0/s1600/Ban-Dihydrogen-Monoxide-debate-8642860-450-450.gif)

DHMO can actually kill you. It's super dangerous, just like that scary fluoride! I read it on the internet!

And it's in your house right now!

It killed 1,833 people under the name of Katrina in 2005! It's a horrible chemical!

All About Flouridation: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058

weswilson wrote:

All About Flouridation: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058

That's pretty imformative. I loved the closing words.

article wrote:

The United States Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent fluoridating water saves fifty dollars in dental expenses. If fluoridation is truly just another conspiracy, then at least this is one that saves money.

Here's a thing that pisses me off: I was at my sister-in-law's one time an noticed their toddler's "kids" toothpaste was non-flouridated. Non-flouridated toothpaste? I says to myself, I says, WTF is the point of that? I asked her if she knew the toothpaste was non-flouridated, and she said no, she hasn't realized, they only bought it because it said "kids" on it.

Quite apart from the fact that kids can use "adult" toothpaste (as if there was such a thing), marketing non-flouridated toothpaste like that should be illegal, if not unethical.

Japanese toothpaste doesn't have fluoride in it.

Gravey wrote:

Here's a thing that pisses me off: I was at my sister-in-law's one time an noticed their toddler's "kids" toothpaste was non-flouridated. Non-flouridated toothpaste? I says to myself, I says, WTF is the point of that? I asked her if she knew the toothpaste was non-flouridated, and she said no, she hasn't realized, they only bought it because it said "kids" on it.

Quite apart from the fact that kids can use "adult" toothpaste (as if there was such a thing), marketing non-flouridated toothpaste like that should be illegal, if not unethical.

The ADA advises not to let kids under 2 use fluoride toothpaste without consulting a dentist or physician.

Reduced or non-fluoridated is great for teaching toddlers to brush their teeth without the worry of their swallowing a bunch of it. We used it for our kids. Considering they still have their baby teeth, I don't see what the big deal is.

Gravey wrote:

Here's a thing that pisses me off: I was at my sister-in-law's one time an noticed their toddler's "kids" toothpaste was non-flouridated. Non-flouridated toothpaste? I says to myself, I says, WTF is the point of that? I asked her if she knew the toothpaste was non-flouridated, and she said no, she hasn't realized, they only bought it because it said "kids" on it.

Quite apart from the fact that kids can use "adult" toothpaste (as if there was such a thing), marketing non-flouridated toothpaste like that should be illegal, if not unethical.

It is possible to OD on the fluoride in toothpaste, however it does require a significant amount. Because kids under 2 or 3 are not likely to readily understand "pea sized" or "do not swallow", it is a safety measure.

Well f*ck me then.

I'm still alive, so I'm assuming "pea-sized" + "parental supervision" worked.

Here is a good Q and A about fluoride from the CDC....

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact...

Main take about it....

They recommend lowering water fluoridation levels....

Why? Because fluoride toothpaste is much more prevalent now than when the standards were first developed.

I believe you can stop cavities without fluoride but you have to be very diligent about brushing.

Another thing about toothpaste... Sodium Laurel Sulfate (SLS) can cause canker sores in mouths. My daughter has stopped getting those sores once we changed her toothpaste to a SLS-free version. (You can get SLS-free toothpaste with fluoride)

Too much fluoride is a toxic. It could cause bone fractures or bone cancer in adults and discolored teeth in children.

Too much anything is toxic. That's not the issue, Goman.

There's still a decent amount of the population that doesn't brush its teeth. Re evaluating the fluoride levels in water is fine, tinfoil hat talk about how it's dangerous isn't fine.

And SLS is the thing that makes toothpaste and shampoo foamy. There's no proven link to cancer/acne/canker sores.

...but there does seem to be correlation. I don't judge those who avoid SLS. I've been considering moving to SLS free shampoo myself.

Seth wrote:

Too much anything is toxic. That's not the issue, Goman.

There's still a decent amount of the population that doesn't brush its teeth. Re evaluating the fluoride levels in water is fine, tinfoil hat talk about how it's dangerous isn't fine.

And SLS is the thing that makes toothpaste and shampoo foamy. There's no proven link to cancer/acne/canker sores.

...but there does seem to be correlation. I don't judge those who avoid SLS. I've been considering moving to SLS free shampoo myself.

There is no proven link but the mechanism is there. A detergent in your mouth can lead to sores if you are susceptible to them.

It could be coincidence but SLS-free toothpaste has worked for my daughter. My other daughter never got sores and she still uses her toothpaste with SLS.

Back to fluoride...

Just giving the facts according the the CDC, not some tin foil greennewsnaturalproducts website.

PS - Fluoride is natural in some water supplies and if it is tested to be higher than the EPA limits, the fluoride is taken out.

NaturalProductsEtc are a sad bunch of naive bumpkins. Truly educated folks know that when (and if) The Government removes fluoride from the water supply, it puts it right back -- into chemtrails!

My grander concern in the US-Canada has healthcare the US does not, are among the poor an especially poor children who do not have access to regular dental cleanings. Most dental insurance stops paying for fluoride treatments after the age of 18. The Boomers got their vaccines and fluoride treatments at the schools, modern kids have to get a ride to a dentist.

If people can get regular dental cleanings, and fluoride treatments, that is great. Canada has great healthcare and dental care. I am all for well thought out cost-benefit looks at programs.

Dubious health issues aside. Once someone can explain how X is so terrible for you (hamburgers, pesticides, Nitrate Fertilizers) and people keep living longer I will listen. In the US we talk about how bad fish is, Japan has the longest life expectancy and eats the most fish. There is also, you know, looking for peer reviewed study on the subject.

KingGorilla wrote:

My grander concern in the US-Canada has healthcare the US does not, are among the poor an especially poor children who do not have access to regular dental cleanings. Most dental insurance stops paying for fluoride treatments after the age of 18. The Boomers got their vaccines and fluoride treatments at the schools, modern kids have to get a ride to a dentist.

If people can get regular dental cleanings, and fluoride treatments, that is great. Canada has great healthcare and dental care. I am all for well thought out cost-benefit looks at programs.

Dubious health issues aside. Once someone can explain how X is so terrible for you (hamburgers, pesticides, Nitrate Fertilizers) and people keep living longer I will listen. In the US we talk about how bad fish is, Japan has the longest life expectancy and eats the most fish. There is also, you know, looking for peer reviewed study on the subject.

What? I've never heard anyone say fish is bad for you. My wife was told not to eat a whole lot of local (to Hawaii) fish while pregnant because of mercury concerns, but that's it. So what's the deal with fish? Why shouldn't I be eating it?

Said mercury concerns.

fangblackbone wrote:

Said mercury concerns.

Bwuh?

Is this a refuting of mercury concerns? Or what? The medical advice is to eat two portions of fish a week (one of them from an oily variety). You shouldn't be eating the same thing every day regardless of what it is because you miss out on other nutrients that are found in other things.

Duoae wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Said mercury concerns.

Bwuh?

Is this a refuting of mercury concerns? Or what? The medical advice is to eat two portions of fish a week (one of them from an oily variety). You shouldn't be eating the same thing every day regardless of what it is because you miss out on other nutrients that are found in other things.

No, said mercury concerns are why certain types of fish are bad for you. The EPA both recommends 2 servings of fish low in mercury per week, and says not to eat any amount of specific types of fish (shark, swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel) due to the high levels of mercury they have in them.

Stengah wrote:
Duoae wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Said mercury concerns.

Bwuh?

Is this a refuting of mercury concerns? Or what? The medical advice is to eat two portions of fish a week (one of them from an oily variety). You shouldn't be eating the same thing every day regardless of what it is because you miss out on other nutrients that are found in other things.

No, said mercury concerns are why certain types of fish are bad for you. The EPA both recommends 2 servings of fish low in mercury per week, and says not to eat any amount of specific types of fish (shark, swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel) due to the high levels of mercury they have in them.

Yeah, it's best to stay away from fish that are high on the food chain because pollutants have been biomagnified by large fish eating and absorbing all the pollutants in small fish.

And this is also dependent on where they are fished from.

There's a (well, two) reasons why Japan gets so much fish from halfway around the world.... Just because a fish from your waters (or near you) is probably high in contaminants, it doesn't mean it is from other waters. This is one of the many reasons why accountability in the fishing industry is so important.... Not to mention all the recent scandals that show that you generally aren't paying for what you're buying.....

Firstly in regards to the Fluoride debate, 97% of Western Europe have rejected water fluoridation, for various reasons relating to health, uncontrollable dosage, lack of studies showing its safety etc. Moving into more detail from this here are points taken from a brilliant article by the Irish Independent in 2000:

*During the '70s and '80s, Sweden, Norway and Finland banned water fluoridation because its long term health and environmental effects were insufficiently known.

*In 1975, Germany rejected it as ``foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment.''

*One year later, the Dutch rewrote their constitution to ensure that the practice would never be allowed in that country again.

*In 1977, Denmark rejected fluoridation because ``no adequate studies had been carried out on the long-term effect on human beings.''

*In 1980, the Chief of Public Health in France declared it "too dangerous''

*More recently, in 1996, 25 out of 26 councils in Northern Ireland voted against fluoridation of their drinking water.

Two years ago, 1,200 scientists, doctors and lawyers from the American Environmental Protection Agency stated their opposition to water fluoridation because of the body of evidence that indicated ``a causal link between it and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology.''

There was also evidence that fluoride could actually lead to tooth disfigurement through fluorosis, a mottling or staining of the teeth that occurs when too much of the chemical is present in the body. Dentists here say up to 40% of Irish people suffer from dental fluorosis, although no research has been carried out to support their claims.

In 1995, however, the American Dental Association found that up to 80% of children living in fluoridated areas in the US and Canada had the condition. When this study was published, Canadian dental authorities conceded that fluoride could lead to bone and tooth destruction and damage overall health.

Some went even further. Dr Harry Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at Toronto University and consultant to the Canadian Dental Authority, claimed that water fluoridation had actually contributed to the birth of the multi-million pound cosmetic dentistry industry. He claimed that more money was now being spent treating dental fluorosis than would be spent on dental cavities if water were not fluoridated.

The article then goes on to talk about a dentist named Don Mac Auley who worked in a Dublin based dentist, who after patient's questioning him about the possible health risks of fluoride, he started research on the matter. It goes on to give more references, findings & one more part in particular that I'll highlight:

Mac Auley decided to appeal his FOI response to the Information Commissioner. Earlier this month, after a wait of almost one year, he finally received answers to some of his questions, answers that have confirmed his fears.

The fluoridating agent used in drinking water here is hydrofluosilicic acid, a component of toxic waste imported from the fertiliser industry in Holland. Hydrofluosilicic acid is a non-biodegradable, highly corrosive substance, contaminated with a number of heavy metals including arsenic and lead.

Every year, the Irish government pays hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Dutch company that produces this acid, a substance which would otherwise cost vast sums of money to dispose of safely.

According to reports by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1997, nine per cent of all water supplies exceed the recommended levels of 1mg of fluoride per litre of water. These and all other exceedances are illegal and impermissible.

With the above point I think its safe to say the US would be using something similar to what Ireland are using.

Lastly on the subject of fluoride in toothpaste:

The Food & Drug Administration now requires that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the United States bear the following poison warning:

“WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

The information is even more fleshed out in the full Irish Independent article. The you tube video mentions that more than a 1000 medical & science professionals from across the world have said that even in its most diluted form fluoride is still a poison & has professionals talking about the matter.

Sources

http://www.fluoridealert.org/content...
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SYgU...
http://www.nofluoride.com/irish_inde...

Do you have any reputable (say, peer-reviewed science journals) sources, or just "woo-woo" sources?

The you tube video mentions that more than a 1000 medical & science professionals from across the world have said that even in its most diluted form fluoride is still a poison & has professionals talking about the matter.

i.e. should I go make a you tube video that mentions that more than ten thousand medical and science professionals from across the world have said that fluoride concerns are unfounded hooey?

Maybe we should look into Denmark's, France's, Germany's, Norway's etc other healthcare practices? Like, maybe universal health insurance?

Spikeout wrote:

*During the '70s and '80s, Sweden, Norway and Finland banned water fluoridation because its long term health and environmental effects were insufficiently known.

Finland
Government is strongly in favor. One community in Finland serving 70,000 people in fluoridated. Two other communities approved fluoridation in 1974.

...

Sweden:
The resolution to repeal the Fluoridation Act is not based on any proposals presented by the Swedish Government or the National Board of Health and Welfare but is entirely based on bills introduced by private members of the parliament. Nor do the bills rest on petition or statements made by odontological (dental) or medical institutions or organizations. The Swedish Royal Commission has been reconsidering the whole question.

Norway
The Directorate of Health in Norway recommends water fluoridation. ". . .No political decision has been made to abandon fluoridation in Norway, and the Norwegian Dental Association supports fluoridation as a safe, effective and efficient public health measure."

Many people in Norway also use various fluoride supplements instead of fluoridated water.

While less than 1% of the children received fluoride tablet in 1971, sales data in 1976 indicated a daily supply of fluoride tablets to 50% of the 0-5-year-olds and to 20% of the 6-11-year-olds.
...
The increased use of fluoride has been paralleled by a marked reduction in caries and restorative need. During the past 5 years, a reduction of about 45% in the number of fillings inserted in 6-17-year-old children has been noted. In some areas, a 70% reduction has been recorded. The ratio between expenses for prophylaxis and savings in cost of treatment is favorable.
*In 1975, Germany rejected it as ``foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment.''

However, they do use fluoridated salt and fluoride supplements

*One year later, the Dutch rewrote their constitution to ensure that the practice would never be allowed in that country again.

Provides fluoride supplements through their government-run health care system.

*In 1977, Denmark rejected fluoridation because ``no adequate studies had been carried out on the long-term effect on human beings.''
The National Health Board of Denmark is convinced that fluoridation is a good health measure. No decision regarding fluoridation has been made yet.
*In 1980, the Chief of Public Health in France declared it "too dangerous''

Also uses fluoridated salt.

*More recently, in 1996, 25 out of 26 councils in Northern Ireland voted against fluoridation of their drinking water.

Northern Ireland has the worst oral health in the UK. In 2012, Health Minister Edwin Poots supported a research trial that gave fluoride supplements to 1200 children.

http://waterfluoridationcenter.org/p...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v2...

Muttonchop's post is like a suplex, if suplexes provided academic citations.

Let's be honest, when your most recent cited instance is 17 years old, and you refer to it as "more recently," you're on shaky academic ground to begin with.

muttonchop wrote:

*awesome citations*

This kind of argument maintains respect for the person while shooting holes in their statements. I like it.

Spikeout, I work directly with the FDA on the order of once a week or so. You could not be more wrong about them. And if they are so bad, how come you trust their warning enough to cite it in your next post?