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

I once ate an entire tube of toothpaste when I was small, so fluoride can't be that poisonous... I survived!

Redwing wrote:

I once ate an entire tube of toothpaste when I was small, so fluoride can't be that poisonous... I survived!

But look at the consequences!!

Duoae wrote:
Redwing wrote:

I once ate an entire tube of toothpaste when I was small, so fluoride can't be that poisonous... I survived!

But look at the consequences!!

;)

My tongue was numb for days. Seriously. It was weird!

Redwing wrote:

I once ate an entire tube of toothpaste when I was small, so fluoride can't be that poisonous... I survived!

Either that, or Australians have started evolving a natural poison resistance as a survival strategy.

muttonchop wrote:
Redwing wrote:

I once ate an entire tube of toothpaste when I was small, so fluoride can't be that poisonous... I survived!

Either that, or Australians have started evolving a natural poison resistance as a survival strategy.

Started? I'm pretty sure a series of injections to get your poison resistance up to Australian standards is a requirement for immigration.

Speaking of urban myths and illogical standpoints it seems like there's a lot of this going around recently... On facebook alone I've had to deal with

cancer crap

Dairy products cause osteoporosis, are highly acidic and biologically transmuting silica to calcium..

And the most obviously provable:

Microwave water is dangerous and very different from boiled water!

I'm beginning to want these people killed off because of their anti-science/logic/knowledge ways through diseases that they could have been vaccinated against but chose not to because someone thought it might be bad because "Aluminium doesn't belong in the body!"... Maybe acceptance of these things is just darwinism in the 21st century?

Duoae wrote:

Speaking of urban myths and illogical standpoints it seems like there's a lot of this going around recently... On facebook alone I've had to deal with

cancer crap

Dairy products cause osteoporosis, are highly acidic and biologically transmuting silica to calcium..

And the most obviously provable:

Microwave water is dangerous and very different from boiled water!

I'm beginning to want these people killed off because of their anti-science/logic/knowledge ways through diseases that they could have been vaccinated against but chose not to because someone thought it might be bad because "Aluminium doesn't belong in the body!"... Maybe acceptance of these things is just darwinism in the 21st century?

...go watch Idiocracy, then see how well that thought holds up.

Duoae wrote:

"Aluminium doesn't belong in the body!"

Psh. "Mistborn" say's differently. Yup, one vial of aluminum a day for me. It seems to be doing it's job because I have yet to be able to do anything extraordinary :-/ Well unless you count blood in your stool extraordinary.

Well mircowaved water can be dangerous, you need to be very careful. Surface tension and the pressure from the vessel can super heat the water, and once you bump the cup it explosively boils. So you gotta be careful.

I am not sure where we were. But I was either just out to lunch or on a trip with my brother. 2 tables over this lay. No, now I remember we were out to lunch, I had the lamb schwarma, we got a large hummus, he had the chicken kebabs. I believe he got fries. The garlic butter at this place is great, so smooth, they serve warm pita and pita chips complimentary as well as pickled vegetables. Try and get there for lunch. They also do party platters. The place is Shish Kebab Express at 15 mile (AKA Maple Road) and Livernois in Troy. They will not rob you, oh and the rice has just a hint of saffron.

Anhyow. As I was chowing down on falafel, there were 2 women in there talking about what microwaves do to your food. This one woman's holistic healer was informing her that is changes the very chemical make of of foods, which leads to cancer. You should never microwave foods because it breaks down chemical bonds, and creates unnatural free radicles.

Now, can the NIH get on this? So that I can know where to put the drill to get this bit of potential aneurysm out of my brain pan?

KingGorilla wrote:

there were 2 women in there talking about what microwaves do to your food. This one woman's holistic healer was informing her that it changes the very chemical make up of foods,

There's a term for that process. It's called cooking.

Jonman wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

there were 2 women in there talking about what microwaves do to your food. This one woman's holistic healer was informing her that is changes the very chemical make of of foods,

There's a term for that process. It's called cooking.

GASP. Cooking

KingGorilla wrote:

GASP. Cooking

Hmmm. I just don't know who to believe when it comes to cooking: a random poster on a crazy-train libertarian web site or scientists who have found that our ancestors took a giant evolutionary step forward and developed the big brain we now have only because they figured out how to cook about 1.8 million years ago.

There are microwave ovens all over NIH, in food prep areas as well as offices. Shows what they know, eh?

The holistic healer could have been a raw vegan. I'm not saying they are right. It is just that their point of view could be consistent.

fangblackbone wrote:

The holistic healer could have been a raw vegan. I'm not saying they are right. It is just that their point of view could be consistent.

Raw vegan? Well, that's a start, but it's not a level 5 vegan.

Farscry wrote:

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? ;)

Well I did mention the American Dental Association who claimed that 80% of children living in fluoridated areas in the US and Canada had fluorsis , Dr Harry Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at Toronto University and consultant to the Canadian Dental Authority going against fluoride. If you even watched the video I linked to it talks about Dr Andrew Harms who was president of the Dental Association in South Australia who is against fluoride in our water system (he has even been asked by the dental association to not to refer to himself as former president of the association). There are other references like Dr Phyllis Mullenix who tested fluoride on rats & it caused memory problems. I'm sorry the references aren't on official government websites (which definitely makes them true).

Lets not forget dentists put mercury (one of the most potent poisons there is) as dental fillings into people's mouths so I really wouldn't go all out on them having your absolute best interests at heart. Doctors & Dentists back in the day advertised cigarettes, they were thought to be harmless.

The one thing I really don't understand is why would dentists risk their careers by coming out against fluoride? when they have next to nothing to gain & everything to lose.

Robear wrote:

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?

I'm not saying that all the people that work for the FDA are bad, its ultimately the top brass that make the decisions that allow all these chemicals into foods, or other hazardous ingredients into various products, GMO's, substances that are banned in other countries but are allowed in the US etc. Lastly former Monsanto employees working for the government (Michael R Taylor among others) how the hell are they gonna be impartial when it comes to a decision on a matter that is clearly gonna favour or go against Monsanto?

I appreciate you do good work & I only referenced them as they let all loads of bad stuff through the system & then they finally put a warning on toothpastes.

In reply to Muttonchop

Firstly at least if fluoride is a supplement in the healthcare system its a choice & again with the salt (which isn't good in the first place) you can choose to buy it or not. The healthcare system doesn't automatically mean its good or safe, I mean they let drugs like Prozac into healthcare systems & even prescribe them to teenagers. They have lots of potential side effects including a black box warning of increasing suicidal behaviour in children.

With the natural occurring calcium fluoride I'd at least be a lot happier if I knew for sure that it was the form used in drinking water. I'd imagine a lot of digging would be needed to find out if the toxic crap like Fluorosilicic acid was actually imported from a foreign country & added ala Ireland.

Spikeout wrote:

Well I did mention the American Dental Association who claimed that 80% of children living in fluoridated areas in the US and Canada had fluorsis

Is this what you're referring to (link)?

Wikipedia wrote:

In November 2006 the American Dental Association published information stating that water fluoridation is safe, effective and healthy; that enamel fluorosis, usually mild and difficult for anyone except a dental health care professional to see, can result from ingesting more than optimal amounts of fluoride in early childhood; that it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula; and that the probability of babies developing fluorosis can be reduced by using ready-to-feed infant formula or using water low in fluoride to prepare powdered or liquid concentrate formula. They go on to say that the way to get the benefits of fluoride but minimize the risk of fluorosis for a child is to get the right amount of fluoride, not too much and not too little. "Your dentist, pediatrician or family physician can help you determine how to optimize your child’s fluoride intake." [10]

I'm not saying that all the people that work for the FDA are bad, its ultimately the top brass that make the decisions that allow all these chemicals into foods, or other hazardous ingredients into various products, GMO's, substances that are banned in other countries but are allowed in the US etc.

No, that's not how the process works; you don't get to special case your way out of this. The "top brass" are not involved in decisions about what's acceptable and what's not in food. That's the working group level, the doctors, researchers, labs, etc. You're basically saying that the entire FDA is either corrupt or incompetent (even though, as I noted before, you are happy to accept their authority when you think they agree with you). It's very, very unusual for the FDA non-science staff to influence regulation, and it's *always* come out in the press, and is very notorious within the Agency as well. It's not the kind of thing that could be hidden, given that the majority of FDA employees are medical or technical professionals, not the expected paper-pushing civil servants of stereotype.

The only time that the FDA leadership intervenes is in very high profile, politically sensitive cases, and in those situations, it's noted in the press whether they went with or against the findings of the researchers. This happened recently with the Plan B pill, which was recommended for teens and up, but due to political desires it was limited to adults. (A court recently overturned it.) This happens once or twice a decade, usually with birth control. (In fact, I can't think of another type of situation where this arose.)

Here's an ADA press release supporting an FDA recommendation on fluoridation of water supplies, which neatly ties together two mistaken points you've made so far. You're relying on very biased sources; do the research with the primary sources (like the FDA recommendations themselves, or the ADA recommendations) and you'll get a very different picture from the one you have presented to us. Maybe start here.

I am just shocked we got so far off the topic. Because the FDA does not have jurisdiction over fluoridation in drinking water, that is the EPA.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Spikeout wrote:

Well I did mention the American Dental Association who claimed that 80% of children living in fluoridated areas in the US and Canada had fluorsis

Is this what you're referring to (link)?

Wikipedia wrote:

In November 2006 the American Dental Association published information stating that water fluoridation is safe, effective and healthy; that enamel fluorosis, usually mild and difficult for anyone except a dental health care professional to see, can result from ingesting more than optimal amounts of fluoride in early childhood; that it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula; and that the probability of babies developing fluorosis can be reduced by using ready-to-feed infant formula or using water low in fluoride to prepare powdered or liquid concentrate formula. They go on to say that the way to get the benefits of fluoride but minimize the risk of fluorosis for a child is to get the right amount of fluoride, not too much and not too little. "Your dentist, pediatrician or family physician can help you determine how to optimize your child’s fluoride intake." [10]

I think it might be this.

If you Google the claim you get a bunch hits, mostly from anti-fluoride web sites. If you focus on the details of Spikeout's claim--80%, children, fluorosis--you quickly get this:

The Fluoridation Fiasco-Poison In Your Water[/url]]The publication Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, put out by the National Academy of Sciences, reports that in areas with optimally fluoridated water (1 ppm, either natural or added), dental fluorosis [that is, permanently stained, brown mottled teeth] affected 8 to 51% of the population. Recently, a prevalence of slightly over 80% was reported in children 12-14 years old in Augusta, Georgia.

While the article cites those numbers as being from the "Schenectady Gazette Star 8/5/89," you can now read the actual report, Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, which was published in 1993. This is the page the quote came from.

As you can see, the anti-fluoride folks have selectively added or removed information to make it better support their position that fluoride is bad:

Several detailed reviews of the literature (Szpunar and Burt, 1987; Pendrys and Stamm, 1990) comparing fluorisis data over time, in addition to other recent research, concluded that the prevalence of dental fluorosis reported in optimally fluoridated areas (both natural and added) in recent years ranged from 8% to 51%, compared with 3% to 26% in nonfluoridated areas. Those ranges consist of all degrees of severity, although 90% or more of the fluorosis cases recorded in the the United States are in the mild-to-very-mile category. More recently, a prevalence of 80.9% was reported in children 12-14 years old in Augusta, Georgia, the highest prevalence yet reported in an optimally fluoridated community in the United States (Williams and Zwemer, 1990).

The report went on to explain why the numbers from Augusta, GA might be so high, including that the fluoridation levels in the water were too high for the climate (people in hotter climates drink more water so the fluoridation levels should have been halved to reflect the higher consumption of water as recommended by the Public Health Service way back in 1962), that 80% of the participants had taken fluoride supplements when they were children (a no-no in an area that had fluoridated water), and that only about a third of the children contacted for the study actually responded which could have resulted in selection bias.

It should also be noted that dental fluorosis is not an actual health issue. It's just a condition that affects tooth enamel. The very mild and mild cases (more than 90% of all cases) are barely noticeable. The photos B and C shows what very mild and mild cases of dental fluorosis looks like.

I haven't been able to find anything published by the American Dental Association that references 80% of children in the US and Canada having fluorosis.

Well I'll grant the anti-flouride crowd this fact: I do have flourosis. I'd categorize it as "very mild"—so mild in fact, that in 33 years I never noticed it until I heard about it. If pressed, I'd say it's not as bad as the damage I've done to my teeth by grinding them at night; and a way better alternative to having a cavity, of which I've none.

Spikeout wrote:

Well I did mention the American Dental Association who claimed that 80% of children living in fluoridated areas in the US and Canada had fluorsis , Dr Harry Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at Toronto University and consultant to the Canadian Dental Authority going against fluoride. If you even watched the video I linked to it talks about Dr Andrew Harms who was president of the Dental Association in South Australia who is against fluoride in our water system (he has even been asked by the dental association to not to refer to himself as former president of the association). There are other references like Dr Phyllis Mullenix who tested fluoride on rats & it caused memory problems. I'm sorry the references aren't on official government websites (which definitely makes them true).

Great way to completely miss my entire response to you.

You made mentions of these things, but didn't source any of them to a peer-reviewed reputable source. Which, despite your misunderstanding, does not mean they need to be on official government sites. Government-sourced does not automatically mean the information is trustworthy.

I'll say it again... there is a scientific consensus there is more than enough fluoride available to everyone.

This is why there is a recommendation to lower the EPA regulatory fluoride limits from 4 PPM to 0.7 PPM.

Here it is from the EPA itself.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...

Well, the DHH recommendation (.7 -1.2 PPM) is set for different reasons than the EPA standard (4 PPM). 4 PPM is the absolute maximum the EPA will allow, with a secondary standard of 2 PPM. The secondary standard is a "guideline to regulate contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects or aesthetic effects." The main difference between the primary and secondary EPA standards is that the secondary standard is non-enforceable. They do require that people be notified if the water supply exceeds the secondary standard, but they can't do anything to make those controlling the water supply to lower it if it's in the 2.1 to 4 PPM range.
Source

Stengah wrote:

Well, the DHH recommendation (.7 -1.2 PPM) is set for different reasons than the EPA standard (4 PPM). 4 PPM is the absolute maximum the EPA will allow, with a secondary standard of 2 PPM. The secondary standard is a "guideline to regulate contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects or aesthetic effects." The main difference between the primary and secondary EPA standards is that the secondary standard is non-enforceable. They do require that people be notified if the water supply exceeds the secondary standard, but they can't do anything to make those controlling the water supply to lower it if it's in the 2.1 to 4 PPM range.
Source

The proposed recommendation is 0.7, not 0.7-1.2 PPM

From my link

HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.

EPA hasn't lowered the maximum amount yet.

goman wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Well, the DHH recommendation (.7 -1.2 PPM) is set for different reasons than the EPA standard (4 PPM). 4 PPM is the absolute maximum the EPA will allow, with a secondary standard of 2 PPM. The secondary standard is a "guideline to regulate contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects or aesthetic effects." The main difference between the primary and secondary EPA standards is that the secondary standard is non-enforceable. They do require that people be notified if the water supply exceeds the secondary standard, but they can't do anything to make those controlling the water supply to lower it if it's in the 2.1 to 4 PPM range.
Source

The proposed recommendation is 0.7, not 0.7-1.2 PPM

From my link

HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.

EPA hasn't lowered the maximum amount yet.

That is correct? The current DHHS recommendation is still 0.7 to 1.2, they've proposed that it be changed from a range to a flat 0.7, but that article didn't say that the recommendation had officially changed, and searching for fluoride on HHS's website didn't find anything other than their version of the release you linked to.

Fun fact: making text bold doesn't support an argument nearly as well as citing your sources, ideally with links.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Fun fact: making text bold doesn't support an argument nearly as well as citing your sources, ideally with links.

Yes, it does. See?

Demosthenes wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Fun fact: making text bold doesn't support an argument nearly as well as citing your sources, ideally with links.

Yes, it does. See?

No! You are wrong!

Stengah wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Fun fact: making text bold doesn't support an argument nearly as well as citing your sources, ideally with links.

Yes, it does. See?

No! You are wrong!

I disagree. FULL. STOP.