|
On May 13 2009 04:46 Chill wrote:
We don't know a lot of things now, even if these things have become mainstream in society. Expecting certainty is unrealistic. We don't know the full affects of sugar-replacements, radiation from many sources, or caffeine ingestion to name a few. We know enough to say it's likely there won't be longterm effects. There likely won't be any longterm effects from water fluorination. What more than that can you ask for?
Secondly, it's not forced on you - the exposure is fully disclosed and you can choose to get water elsewhere. You can choose to use products using non-fluronated water.
If you are concerned with the associated costs, there are innumerable better places to fight that than with water fluoronation.
You're absolutely right! I'm just stating my point of view on the issue. In fact I just continued posting because people were so aggressively defending it. I defend transparency above all things, and present my case!
In my opinion, again, we should minimize the things we know are "bad". Fluoride is useless! And it could be bad! Why not avoid it? Why pay to have it in the water? Makes no sense! The whole thing smells of underlying agendas. And we shouldn't accept it, much less defend it. That's all.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
I think the point is that it is proven to be good, but could be bad. In that case we go with what we know, not what could be true.
|
Indeed, what we know is that brushing your teeth is enough  No need to add stuff in the water.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:56 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 03:23 threepool wrote:On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote:Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because:
-Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth
-Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard
-yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it.
Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. I don't have to do a God damned retrospective study with 341421 confounding variables, or even ask a bunch of PhDs to figure that one out, thanks. Unfortunately, your capacity for logical reasoning is so flawed that you would be very lucky to say seven things and have even one of them make any sense at all. (you don't think the government cares about the GDP--what the fuck?) I'd like to see the studies which show negative correlation of cavities to the GDP of a country, rofl. And tbh, they don't care that much about GDP either. Politicians just want to get elected, and reelected. They'll say whatever you want to hear, and do their job with the least effort possible. As long as they're still seated, who cares.
What is your basis for believing any of this? I know you don't have qualitative research to back up your claims about politicians. All you've got is contrarian intuition, which in this case is at odds with logic and evidence. Believing in evil agendas is infantile.
At least when HeadBangaa makes this argument, he has the good sense to know that people are misguided but not evil.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016840.htm
The association between fluoride in drinking water and reduction of dental caries was first documented in the 1930s in communities with naturally occurring fluoride (2). However, it became necessary to validate and quantify efficacy when alternate systemic and topical methods to deliver fluoride were proposed.
In 1945 and 1946, independently conducted community trials to assess the effectiveness of water fluoridation were initiated in four communities in Canada and the United States (Brantford, Ontario; Evanston, Illinois; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Newburgh, New York) (Table 1). Four nearby and demographically similar communities were selected for comparison. Following fluoridation for 13-15 years, the prevalence of caries decreased 48%-70% among 12-14-year-olds in the four communities (2). Studies in other communities indicated that, following fluoridation for 10 years, the prevalence of caries decreased 45%-94% (median: 58%) among children (3).
Oh, I guess that means you should shut up about effectiveness.
The direct cost of fluoridating public water supplies is related to a variety of factors, including size of the community, number of wells and treatment plants, amount and type of equipment, amount and type of fluoride chemical, and personnel costs (9). Annual costs of water fluoridation per capita varied inversely with community size, ranging from 12 cents to 21 cents for water systems serving populations greater than 200,000 persons, 18 cents to 75 cents for systems serving 10,000-200,000 persons, and 60 cents to $5.41 for systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons; the mean national weighted estimate is 51 cents (10). Of all persons receiving optimally fluoridated community drinking water, approximately 85% are served by water systems for which the annual per capita cost of fluoridation is 12 cents-75 cents (11).
For 1990, the Health Care Financing Administration estimated that $34 billion (5% of all U.S. expenditures for health care) was spent for dental services (12), of which $4.5 billion (13.2%) may have been spent on dental amalgam restorations (American Dental Association, personal communication, 1992). Based on a national average cost per restoration of $40 (13) and a mean national weighted cost of 51 cents per person per year to fluoridate drinking water (10), each $1 expenditure for water fluoridation could result in a savings of $80 in dental treatment costs. Estimated nondiscounted per capita expenditures for water fluoridation during a lifetime ($38.25 at 51 cents per year for 75 years) are approximately equal to the average nondiscounted cost of one dental restoration. On average in a 75 year lifetime, fluoridation costs $38.25 per person and saves upwards of 80 times its cost for the general population. To repeat, fluoridation saves more money than it costs.
So the next step in your argument is going to have to be that the CDC is just a pawn of Big Fluoride and has no concern for the health of the public.
|
Norway28910 Posts
On May 12 2009 17:21 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 17:19 threepool wrote:On May 12 2009 15:58 SwedishHero wrote:Even though I think its quite harmless to drink some water with fluoride in it, I also think its quite overkill to add it to all the water supply. How hard can it be to just buy some mouthwash with flouride in it and spit it out Ps I will come back on this subject after having a talk with Dr house hehe The problem isn't with us, the problem is mostly with poor people. Tooth decay can be devastating when someone can't afford treatment--imagine you're already having trouble getting a job, then suddenly you're missing a couple of teeth and have revolting bad breath. In addition, oral infections can easily spread, causing a lot of other health problems including heart disease. It's really a huge problem that can be an economic drain on society, and nobody has come up with a better treatment for the problem than fluoridation, not that I've seen anyway. I don't want to find myself rabidly defending fluoride at all costs here, but I did want to respond to your point, and say that it's not quite as simple as buying mouthwash for everyone on the planet. Please, I admire your concern but the government doesn't care about your health. It cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. Sorry I gotta sleep a little.
what the hell?
it does not care about your health, okay, I can understand you thinking this. I don't believe it for a second myself, but more power to you. it's good to not accept everything you're told.
it cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. okay, so you believe this.
now why do you believe that the best way the government can think of to accomplish this goal, looking good and getting our money, is through _poisoning the population_ ?
seriously?
|
Yurebis, you have no audience here. Reserve you efforts, is my opinion.
|
On May 13 2009 04:47 Yurebis wrote:Something to consider, non-fluoridated countries having just as low caries as fluoridated countries. Not proof at any rate (many lurking variables involved in this type of statistic), but it's another piece of evidence that systemic use of fluoride is nearly or completely useless. We all brush our teeth and it's just fine, no need to drink that crap.
And this, somehow, is proof for your cause.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Well, apparently not everything you say is bullshit. I honestly thought that the fluoride you ingested would prevent cavities by strengthening the enamel as it was built, a misconception which I picked up somewhere. Clearly that was wrong.
However, you are still a long way from illustrating that fluoridated drinking water has no sigificant effect. Not only is there plenty of evidence showing that fluoridated drinking water prevents cavities (such as this study, or all the citations on Wikipedia's article), but more specficially, it may be possible for ingested fluoride to have topical effects on both erupted and non-erupted teeth, due to its presence in your body fluids. The quote below explains how.
Use of fluoride
(I'm retyping the quote below since I can't copy and paste from Google books, so excuse any typos that I might introduce.)
To add further complications to the issue of systemic versus topical effects, it may be an oversimplification to designate fluoride as simply "systemic" or "topical" because fluoride that is swallowed may contribute to a topical effect on erupted teeth, and conversely swallowed fluoride may exert a topical effect on unerupted teeth. Perhaps, it is easier to understand the mechanisms of systemic and topical fluoride in the context of preeruptive and posteruptive effects of fluoride (Figure 4.1). The preeruptive effects, are based not only on deposition of fluoride in teeth during the mineralization of enamel, but also on fully formed teeth that remain unerupted for a considerable time acquiring significant amounts of fluoride on the surface enamel from the crypt fluid. Thus, fully formed unerupted teeth are topically exposed to fluoride in plasma for several years, producing a fluoride-rich zone on the enamel surface before eruption (Weatherell et al., 1977). In contrast, fluoride that is swallowed increases the plasma fluoride levels, and subsequently the salivary and gingival crevicular fluoride levels, to produce a topical effect on erupted teeth via a systemic route (Rolla and Ekstrand, 1996). Early studies by Bowen showed that primates given doses of fluoride by gastric intubation were found to have elevated levels of plaque fluoride derived from salivary secretions and gingival crevicular fluids. This clearly demonstrated a topical effect from the systemic route (Bowen, 1973).
|
On May 13 2009 08:12 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 03:56 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2009 03:23 threepool wrote:On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote:Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because:
-Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth
-Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard
-yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it.
Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. I don't have to do a God damned retrospective study with 341421 confounding variables, or even ask a bunch of PhDs to figure that one out, thanks. Unfortunately, your capacity for logical reasoning is so flawed that you would be very lucky to say seven things and have even one of them make any sense at all. (you don't think the government cares about the GDP--what the fuck?) I'd like to see the studies which show negative correlation of cavities to the GDP of a country, rofl. And tbh, they don't care that much about GDP either. Politicians just want to get elected, and reelected. They'll say whatever you want to hear, and do their job with the least effort possible. As long as they're still seated, who cares. What is your basis for believing any of this? I know you don't have qualitative research to back up your claims about politicians. All you've got is contrarian intuition, which in this case is at odds with logic and evidence. Believing in evil agendas is infantile. At least when HeadBangaa makes this argument, he has the good sense to know that people are misguided but not evil. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016840.htmShow nested quote +The association between fluoride in drinking water and reduction of dental caries was first documented in the 1930s in communities with naturally occurring fluoride (2). However, it became necessary to validate and quantify efficacy when alternate systemic and topical methods to deliver fluoride were proposed.
In 1945 and 1946, independently conducted community trials to assess the effectiveness of water fluoridation were initiated in four communities in Canada and the United States (Brantford, Ontario; Evanston, Illinois; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Newburgh, New York) (Table 1). Four nearby and demographically similar communities were selected for comparison. Following fluoridation for 13-15 years, the prevalence of caries decreased 48%-70% among 12-14-year-olds in the four communities (2). Studies in other communities indicated that, following fluoridation for 10 years, the prevalence of caries decreased 45%-94% (median: 58%) among children (3). Oh, I guess that means you should shut up about effectiveness. Show nested quote +The direct cost of fluoridating public water supplies is related to a variety of factors, including size of the community, number of wells and treatment plants, amount and type of equipment, amount and type of fluoride chemical, and personnel costs (9). Annual costs of water fluoridation per capita varied inversely with community size, ranging from 12 cents to 21 cents for water systems serving populations greater than 200,000 persons, 18 cents to 75 cents for systems serving 10,000-200,000 persons, and 60 cents to $5.41 for systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons; the mean national weighted estimate is 51 cents (10). Of all persons receiving optimally fluoridated community drinking water, approximately 85% are served by water systems for which the annual per capita cost of fluoridation is 12 cents-75 cents (11).
For 1990, the Health Care Financing Administration estimated that $34 billion (5% of all U.S. expenditures for health care) was spent for dental services (12), of which $4.5 billion (13.2%) may have been spent on dental amalgam restorations (American Dental Association, personal communication, 1992). Based on a national average cost per restoration of $40 (13) and a mean national weighted cost of 51 cents per person per year to fluoridate drinking water (10), each $1 expenditure for water fluoridation could result in a savings of $80 in dental treatment costs. Estimated nondiscounted per capita expenditures for water fluoridation during a lifetime ($38.25 at 51 cents per year for 75 years) are approximately equal to the average nondiscounted cost of one dental restoration. On average in a 75 year lifetime, fluoridation costs $38.25 per person and saves upwards of 80 times its cost for the general population. To repeat, fluoridation saves more money than it costs. So the next step in your argument is going to have to be that the CDC is just a pawn of Big Fluoride and has no concern for the health of the public.
We live in a world of deep, deep corruption. You have got to prepare for the worst and wish for the best, not the opposite, if you don't want to be fooled. I don't care if it's on purpose or not, but there certainly is something wrong here. People wanting to save face at all costs, pretending its all good and dandy. It's not OK. Government and corporations lies to us constantly, I have every right do doubt their every word. I'm not going to act on it if I'm not sure, but I'm not going to defend their actions when it's obvious they're not sure either.
They've introduced fluoride in 1940 when they didn't know, still don't know, and perhaps won't ever know nor look for long term side effects. You seriously think that's the attitude of a group that cares for you? They don't care, just dump it in the water supply and say it's good. Hell, give it to your babies too. Everyone should take it. It goes through the bloodstream and shit, gets to your teeth, and gets as hard as fucking lead! Fuck cavities, we got em with this shit!
Then years go by and they got to admit it's not that good. The mechanism doesn't work. It builds up in your bones, yah. Oh by the way, don't give it to your babies, my bad lols. That's not being competent at all. I don't know if it was on purpose or not, but I'm not going to pretend this didn't happen. Or other things similar to this didn't happen. Lead, asbestos, tobacco... there's a strong historical precedent of this government and bought-off scientists fucking up in health issues. Just because this one isn't that BAD, doesn't mean it's not just as WRONG.
Also may I direct you to the more updated reports, say from 30 years in the future, that say those 1950's and 1940 are all non-random retrospective garbage? It's when people started using fluoride toothpaste, it's when cavities started ceasing. They took that and made it correlate with their fluoridation trials. No shit people aren't getting cavities, they're brushing their teeth. The small amount of fluoride in their BONES and BRAIN ain't got much to do with it. Anyway, please stick with the fake 10% they say today, it's better to save face than to go back in time when we were all ignorant.
I didn't know it was that cheap tho. Indeed it should be, most sources aren't even pharmaceutical grade fluoride (sodium or calcium fluoride), they just take the toxic waste trucks full of silicofluoride or some other compound and dump it in the water...
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:23 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 04:47 Yurebis wrote:Something to consider, non-fluoridated countries having just as low caries as fluoridated countries. Not proof at any rate (many lurking variables involved in this type of statistic), but it's another piece of evidence that systemic use of fluoride is nearly or completely useless. We all brush our teeth and it's just fine, no need to drink that crap. And this, somehow, is proof for your cause.
Seems like Yurebis is good at citing articles, but terrible at deriving conclusions from what he cites.
In this case, he ignores people who do not brush their teeth enough or at all, such as poor people. His graph does not distinguish between the countries' rich and poor populations.
|
On May 13 2009 08:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 17:21 Yurebis wrote:On May 12 2009 17:19 threepool wrote:On May 12 2009 15:58 SwedishHero wrote:Even though I think its quite harmless to drink some water with fluoride in it, I also think its quite overkill to add it to all the water supply. How hard can it be to just buy some mouthwash with flouride in it and spit it out Ps I will come back on this subject after having a talk with Dr house hehe The problem isn't with us, the problem is mostly with poor people. Tooth decay can be devastating when someone can't afford treatment--imagine you're already having trouble getting a job, then suddenly you're missing a couple of teeth and have revolting bad breath. In addition, oral infections can easily spread, causing a lot of other health problems including heart disease. It's really a huge problem that can be an economic drain on society, and nobody has come up with a better treatment for the problem than fluoridation, not that I've seen anyway. I don't want to find myself rabidly defending fluoride at all costs here, but I did want to respond to your point, and say that it's not quite as simple as buying mouthwash for everyone on the planet. Please, I admire your concern but the government doesn't care about your health. It cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. Sorry I gotta sleep a little. what the hell? it does not care about your health, okay, I can understand you thinking this. I don't believe it for a second myself, but more power to you. it's good to not accept everything you're told. it cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. okay, so you believe this. now why do you believe that the best way the government can think of to accomplish this goal, looking good and getting our money, is through _poisoning the population_ ? seriously?
They didn't know if it would come up to the surface because all the studies showed was fluorosis. Indeed fluorosis is the only imminent health hazard that happens from fluoride overdosis. What's at hand is the long term effects of drinking 1ppm fluoridated water every day for years.
Also Misinformed + political pressure + lobbying, take a pick. Or a combo. I don't care.
|
On May 13 2009 09:23 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 04:47 Yurebis wrote:Something to consider, non-fluoridated countries having just as low caries as fluoridated countries. Not proof at any rate (many lurking variables involved in this type of statistic), but it's another piece of evidence that systemic use of fluoride is nearly or completely useless. We all brush our teeth and it's just fine, no need to drink that crap. And this, somehow, is proof for your cause.
What the fuck, I said it's not proof. It's evidence that topical fluoride use >>>>>>>>>>> systemic use
topical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systemic
It makes sense though, why would the fluoride compounds accumulate in the teeth first and the bones later. It doesn't, it goes a little bit everywhere, in your bones throughout the body, not just the teeth. If you only drink 1mg (2 liters, -50% pee'd away, lol scientific terminology rulz) per day it's not going to do much to your teeth ever, maybe in 10 years, I don't know. Point is, it's 1000x times better to put a concentrated solution directly on the tissue where it matters, i.e.. some sort of toothpaste-brush schematic. I wonder if it's been patented, hmm.
|
not poisoning eri. that's not quite accurate.
it's so dumb. really. think about it on a basic level. it's a waste product. the nazis used it to subdue people. and we are put it into our water supply. it's just so stupid. the amounts don't even matter. putting any of it in our water is clearly stupid.
I think it's all about money, I'm not convinced of any more than that. I think there are too many greedy fucks that run things and who's decisions are ran by dollars rather than concern for the general welfare.
Do you think it was coincidence that as all of this fluorine waste is building up in the U.S., Suddenly experiments are done and it's a good idea to dispose of it through our water supplies. This not only saves companies the hassle of disposing of it, but makes them tremendous profit at the expense of the taxpayer.
Oh, and the first tests for water fluoridation? Apparently they were done on cities, entire cities. not test groups. I wonder if they were even told. That's fucking crazy.
|
Norway28910 Posts
but why would they start adding fluoride in the first place? did they initially think it would help, only to find out that it was a bad idea, but they then couldnt backtrack because it would make them look bad?
or were they just trying to make some money by allowing companies to dump toxic waste in our drinking water supplies?
or what?
|
Norway28910 Posts
but travis he is saying it's poisoning, im not using different words from him.
|
On May 13 2009 09:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
or were they just trying to make some money by allowing companies to dump toxic waste in our drinking water supplies?
This is what drives tons of government actions. I don't see why that would be unreasonable. Imagine how much money certain big manufacturers, like aluminum, stood to make by doing this. Incredible amounts.
Well then if he is saying poisoning it is a colorful choice of words.
|
Norway28910 Posts
and travis, how much money does the government make from allowing companies to dump waste products into your drinking water?
|
On May 13 2009 09:33 Bill307 wrote:Well, apparently not everything you say is bullshit. I honestly thought that the fluoride you ingested would prevent cavities by strengthening the enamel as it was built, a misconception which I picked up somewhere. Clearly that was wrong. However, you are still a long way from illustrating that fluoridated drinking water has no sigificant effect. Not only is there plenty of evidence showing that fluoridated drinking water prevents cavities (such as this study, or all the citations on Wikipedia's article), but more specficially, it may be possible for ingested fluoride to have topical effects on both erupted and non-erupted teeth, due to its presence in your body fluids. The quote below explains how. Use of fluoride(I'm retyping the quote below since I can't copy and paste from Google books, so excuse any typos that I might introduce.) Show nested quote +To add further complications to the issue of systemic versus topical effects, it may be an oversimplification to designate fluoride as simply "systemic" or "topical" because fluoride that is swallowed may contribute to a topical effect on erupted teeth, and conversely swallowed fluoride may exert a topical effect on unerupted teeth. Perhaps, it is easier to understand the mechanisms of systemic and topical fluoride in the context of preeruptive and posteruptive effects of fluoride (Figure 4.1). The preeruptive effects, are based not only on deposition of fluoride in teeth during the mineralization of enamel, but also on fully formed teeth that remain unerupted for a considerable time acquiring significant amounts of fluoride on the surface enamel from the crypt fluid. Thus, fully formed unerupted teeth are topically exposed to fluoride in plasma for several years, producing a fluoride-rich zone on the enamel surface before eruption (Weatherell et al., 1977). In contrast, fluoride that is swallowed increases the plasma fluoride levels, and subsequently the salivary and gingival crevicular fluoride levels, to produce a topical effect on erupted teeth via a systemic route (Rolla and Ekstrand, 1996). Early studies by Bowen showed that primates given doses of fluoride by gastric intubation were found to have elevated levels of plaque fluoride derived from salivary secretions and gingival crevicular fluids. This clearly demonstrated a topical effect from the systemic route (Bowen, 1973).
I don't know about that study but I seriously doubt that. You'd need insane concentrations of fluoride injected in those monkeys for it to have enough of it in their saliva. Wouldn't they die, lols. Remember that the minimal lethal dosage of fluoride is 5mg/kg, so how can you ever get more than the 1000mg+/kg from toothpaste in your saliva when you can't even have like 400mg in your bloodstream without potentially dying?
edit: To be clear, I mean that, even if you could, it would still be less effective than brushing your teeth. How much fluoride was in that chink's saliva anyways...
|
Norway28910 Posts
to me, it's very unreasonable to accuse your government of gambling with the health and safety of a couple hundred million inhabitants just to make a little more money. there are far easier and less risky ways for people with wealth and power to maintain or increase their wealth and power.. drinking water is one of the most essential supplies of any nation..
|
United States22883 Posts
Nothing in this thread, even among the terrible evidence you've presented, has indicated corruption (which is as meaningless as terms like 'natural' ) as the source of the imaginary problem.
When all you know how to do is cry wolf, everything starts to look like one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.gif)
