|
On May 13 2009 09:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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?
IMO they were looking for a cheap way to get rid of toxic waste, found out an use for it (controls cavity growth), and went ahead with that. I think the tests could of been very legit but shortsighted, only looking for immediate effects of fluoride poisoning like fluorosis.
It's not that much of a conspiracy theory unless there's some eugenic idea of lowering IQs if fluoride turns out to be a neurotoxin. I don't even know if the story about nazis and soviets using it is true, I mean there's some second hand testimonies and situational evidence but nothing really solid on that. At least thats what I read. So I don't think that was the purpose back then at least. The way things go today, with fluoride being added to children's food and baby supplements, I don't even know anymore, I wouldn't doubt anything...
But really you don't have to go that far to accept that it's a bad idea, should be taken out, and more research (particularly experiments, enough with the retrospective studies) is necessary before re-introducing this
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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..
But Big Fluoride has it out to rape tax payers of money, to the tune of 4 MILLION DOLLARS annually in New York City (pop: 19mill.)
Or maybe travis is right and the dentists are behind it, even though it's preventing hundreds of millions of dollars in dental bills on an individual state basis.
|
On May 13 2009 09:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
and travis, how much money does the government make from allowing companies to dump waste products into your drinking water?
Do you think the bush administration was corrupt? And often made terribly corrupt decisions driven by corrupt intentions?
If so, isn't it possible that such a corrupt administration existed back then?
If not, then I think you are naive :/
|
On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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..
On May 13 2009 09:56 Jibba wrote:
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.
But there certainly is a level of corruption to adopt this kind of thing when you transit toxic waste -> medical agent. Someone had to be paid to make the initial research and get the ball rolling. May not even be that expensive either. Don't even need a lobbyist when you got some scientific establishments accepting your idea. It's not just corruption of course I've been saying all along, it's a conjunction of both ignorance and conspiracy: some people getting trapped in their own lies, self sustaining lies; and others profiting even the slightest bit from it.
|
I love how Yurebis didn't even know the word systemic until I mentioned it and all of sudden it's a cornerstone of his arguments...
Am I the only one who wonders why he keeps bringing up the idea that fluoride is still prevalent because people are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes? Is it because he thinks everybody is vain like him, stubbornly sticking to an idea long after it has been thoroughly discredited, refusing to ever admit fault?
Sorry, don't mind me, I'm not part of this argument anymore...
|
I just read a summary of "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards." It was published in 2006, so it's rather recent.
I will summarize some of the main points.
The current maximum level of flouride allowed in US water is 4mg/L. Most drinking water artificially flourinated is at a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L
Levels of flouride around 4mg/L are associated with an increased risk of dental flourosis (ugly brown teeth). These risks are not seen in groups who drink flourinated water in the range of .7-1.2ml/L.
Fluoride increases bone density and appears to exacerbate the growth of osteophytes present in the bone and joints, resulting in joint stiffness and pain. Models estimated that bone fluoride concentrations resulting from lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 2 mg/L (4,000 to 5,000 mg/kg ash) or 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg ash) fall within or exceed the ranges historically associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis (4,300 to 9,200 mg/kg ash and 4,200 to 12,700 mg/kg ash, respectively)
The weight of evidence indicates that, although fluoride might increase bone volume, there is less strength per unit volume. Studies of rats indicate that bone strength begins to decline when fluoride in bone ash reaches 6,000 to 7,000 mg/kg. Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. The majority of the committee concluded that lifetime exposure to fluoride at drinking-water concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher is likely to increase fracture rates in the population, compared with exposure to 1 mg/L.
Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.
The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity. Some of these effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less
In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concludes is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bones.
Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. The charge to the committee did not include an examination of the benefits and risks that might occur at these lower concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.
In other words, there is consensus among experts that we should lower the level of flouride in the drinking water currently allowed. Questioning the optimal range is legitimate, but I have seen ZERO evidence that suggests the range should be below what is currently recomended.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:04 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.. Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 09:56 Jibba wrote:
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. But there certainly is a level of corruption to adopt this kind of thing when you transit toxic waste -> medical agent. Someone had to be paid to make the initial research and get the ball rolling. May not even be that expensive either. Don't even need a lobbyist when you got some scientific establishments accepting your idea. It's not just corruption of course I've been saying all along, it's a conjunction of both ignorance and conspiracy: some people getting trapped in their own lies, self sustaining lies; and others profiting even the slightest bit from it.
There are naturally fluoridated streams in Colorado. In the early 20th century, someone noticed that the people living around those water supplies had much lower rates of tooth decay than everyone else in the country. They ran tests to figure out why, and then chose 5 sample cities to run 15 year tests on. All cities had dramatic reductions in tooth decay. What do you think happened next?
|
On May 13 2009 10:05 threepool wrote:
I love how Yurebis didn't even know the word systemic until I mentioned it and all of sudden it's a cornerstone of his arguments...
Am I the only one who wonders why he keeps bringing up the idea that fluoride is still prevalent because people are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes? Is it because he thinks everybody is vain like him, stubbornly sticking to an idea long after it has been thoroughly discredited, refusing to ever admit fault?
Sorry, don't mind me, I'm not part of this argument anymore...
No you certainly are part, everyone is, everyone learns a little. I didn't know fluoride actually helped tooth decay, I thought at first it was all a lie but it does indeed help, no studies deny that. It's just the way it's used thats not ideal, plus could be dangerous over time.
There's no shame in being mistaken but its a fact people don't like to be wrong. You may not think that psychological trait was a contributer to this fluoridated water movement but at least I do, I see it clear as day. If I'm wrong then I would apologize heavily but I haven't been proved to be yet at least. I don't think it's shameful to doubt authority no matter what, even if you're wrong and stupid, it takes courage, and if everyone did, then certainly less mistakes would occur, be them conspiracies or not.
|
On May 13 2009 10:02 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.. But Big Fluoride has it out to rape tax payers of money, to the tune of 4 MILLION DOLLARS annually in New York City (pop: 19mill.)
fluoridation started like 50-60 years ago genius
Or maybe travis is right and the dentists are behind it, even though it's preventing hundreds of millions of dollars in dental bills on an individual state basis.
How many dentists actually have done their own studies on the effects of long term fluoridation at low levels. NONE
And how many dentists have personally done experimentation regarding the results of fluoride in drinking water's effects on teeth, anyways? Really, I would be interested in knowing.
It's not like there aren't dentists out there that are anti-fluoridation.
And I dont give a fuck if it's helpful for my teeth or not anyways. My teeth are plenty healthy and whiter than they've ever been, and I use non-fluoride toothpaste.
|
|
|
On May 13 2009 10:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 10:04 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.. On May 13 2009 09:56 Jibba wrote:
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. But there certainly is a level of corruption to adopt this kind of thing when you transit toxic waste -> medical agent. Someone had to be paid to make the initial research and get the ball rolling. May not even be that expensive either. Don't even need a lobbyist when you got some scientific establishments accepting your idea. It's not just corruption of course I've been saying all along, it's a conjunction of both ignorance and conspiracy: some people getting trapped in their own lies, self sustaining lies; and others profiting even the slightest bit from it. There are naturally fluoridated streams in Colorado. In the early 20th century, someone noticed that the people living around those water supplies had much lower rates of tooth decay than everyone else in the country. They ran tests to figure out why, and then chose 5 sample cities to run 15 year tests on. All cities had dramatic reductions in tooth decay. What do you think happened next?
Thats evidence for the safety of fluoride (calcium fluoride in that case Id think, which is a little less active), but doesn't mean you can straight away introduce a chemical in the water supply without experimenting further (experimenting at all really), you never know what other things can happen.
|
ahhh i got lured back in. must... leave.
gl thread
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:08 aRod wrote:
I just read a summary of "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards." It was published in 2006, so it's rather recent.
I will summarize some of the main points.
The current maximum level of flouride allowed in US water is 4mg/L. Most drinking water artificially flourinated is at a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L
Levels of flouride around 4mg/L are associated with an increased risk of dental flourosis (ugly brown teeth). These risks are not seen in groups who drink flourinated water in the range of .7-1.2ml/L.
Fluoride increases bone density and appears to exacerbate the growth of osteophytes present in the bone and joints, resulting in joint stiffness and pain. Models estimated that bone fluoride concentrations resulting from lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 2 mg/L (4,000 to 5,000 mg/kg ash) or 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg ash) fall within or exceed the ranges historically associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis (4,300 to 9,200 mg/kg ash and 4,200 to 12,700 mg/kg ash, respectively)
The weight of evidence indicates that, although fluoride might increase bone volume, there is less strength per unit volume. Studies of rats indicate that bone strength begins to decline when fluoride in bone ash reaches 6,000 to 7,000 mg/kg. Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. The majority of the committee concluded that lifetime exposure to fluoride at drinking-water concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher is likely to increase fracture rates in the population, compared with exposure to 1 mg/L.
Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.
The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity. Some of these effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less
In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concludes is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bones.
Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. The charge to the committee did not include an examination of the benefits and risks that might occur at these lower concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.
In other words, there is consensus among experts that we should lower the level of flouride in the drinking water currently allowed. Questioning the optimal range is legitimate, but I have seen ZERO evidence that suggests the range should be below what is currently recomended.
This is an excellent post, and we can have a discussion about whether the policy recommendations are reasonable and whether the EPA limit should be brought to a more conservative level.
According to the ADA, it's not needed and the report is often taken out of context.
Chicago, March 22, 2006—The American Dental Association (ADA) emphasizes that the just-released report on fluoride by the National Academies' National Research Council only addresses the levels of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water that exceed the EPA's current recommendations. The report in no way examines or calls into question the safety of community water fluoridation, which is the process of adding fluoride to public water supplies to reach an optimal level of 0.7 – 1.2 ppm in order to protect people against tooth decay. One part per million is the equivalent to about one cent in $10,000. The ADA continues to endorse community water fluoridation as a vital public health measure.
The report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standard, concludes that the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum fluoride goal of 4 ppm should be lowered to protect the public's health . Just over 200,000 Americans live in communities where fluoride levels in drinking water are 4 ppm or higher. It is crucial to note that the 4 ppm concentration of fluoride is nearly four times the optimum amount recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and ADA to prevent tooth decay.
The ADA is a strong supporter of community water fluoridation, cited by the CDC as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, as a safe, beneficial and cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay in children and adults.
|
The entire discussion avoids the real matter. The knowledge we have of the effects of substances is always progressing and changing. Before 1970, we were literally bathing in DDT.
The real question is, should we be supplementing tap water at all? The "why not" question is answered in bold in this post, and really puts the burden of proof on the proponents of supplementation.
But then, such a proof is impossible. You can't prove a negative. But what I'm seeing by and large in this thread, are people saying, "Yes you can't prove the negative, and so it doesn't need proving." But then I see the same people arguing over humanity's current body of information.
Stop playing both sides against the middle. Either throw out the facts along with your dismissal or proving a negative, or provide an exhaustive (and impossible) explanation as to why supplementation is safe.
|
On May 13 2009 10:08 aRod wrote:In other words, there is consensus among experts that we should lower the level of flouride in the drinking water currently allowed. Questioning the optimal range is legitimate, but I have seen ZERO evidence that suggests the range should be below what is currently recomended.
There's little evidence regarding exactly 1ppm, but I see many problems with having even 1ppm. They're disregarding that not only do people get fluoride from the water but from secondary sources too. Like toothpaste, processed foods, really any food that had fluoride come in contact with it. So people aren't always limited to the 1ppm. Once that it has been proven that ingested fluoride doesn't help much or at all compared to toothpaste, we should simply stop putting it in. There's no point to it anymore. Why stay in borderline levels of toxicity when you can avoid it taking these basics steps back and reconsidering what we do with our food and water.
|
On May 13 2009 10:22 HeadBangaa wrote:
The entire discussion avoids the real matter. The knowledge we have of the effects of substances is always progressing and changing. Before 1970, we were literally bathing in DDT.
The real question is, should we be supplementing tap water at all? The "why not" question is answered in bold in this post, and really puts the burden of proof on the proponents of supplementation.
But then, such a proof is impossible. You can't prove a negative. But what I'm seeing by and large in this thread, are people saying, "Yes you can't prove the negative, and so it doesn't need proving." But then I see the same people arguing over humanity's current body of information.
Stop playing both sides against the middle. Either throw out the facts along with your dismissal or proving a negative, or provide an exhaustive (and impossible) explanation as to why supplementation is safe.
I can prove it's nearly useless therefore it's not worth taking a risk. That's good enough for me to leave it out!
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:15 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 10:11 Jibba wrote:On May 13 2009 10:04 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.. On May 13 2009 09:56 Jibba wrote:
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. But there certainly is a level of corruption to adopt this kind of thing when you transit toxic waste -> medical agent. Someone had to be paid to make the initial research and get the ball rolling. May not even be that expensive either. Don't even need a lobbyist when you got some scientific establishments accepting your idea. It's not just corruption of course I've been saying all along, it's a conjunction of both ignorance and conspiracy: some people getting trapped in their own lies, self sustaining lies; and others profiting even the slightest bit from it. There are naturally fluoridated streams in Colorado. In the early 20th century, someone noticed that the people living around those water supplies had much lower rates of tooth decay than everyone else in the country. They ran tests to figure out why, and then chose 5 sample cities to run 15 year tests on. All cities had dramatic reductions in tooth decay. What do you think happened next? Thats evidence for the safety of fluoride (calcium fluoride in that case Id think, which is a little less active), but doesn't mean you can straight away introduce a chemical in the water supply without experimenting further (experimenting at all really), you never know what other things can happen.
The fact that there was inadequate testing for long term negative consequences when it was first implemented in most cities is not unique to fluoridation, nor is it particularly rare to see today. In terms of safety, they fucked up just like they did for cigarettes and asbestos and many other things. It turned out, unlike those other things, that people weren't dropping dead and there were no widespread problems occurring that could be attributed to the fluoride in water. Were they short sighted? Yes. Were they malicious? No. Did they "luck out?" Maybe.
You're criticizing the practices from 60 years ago, when there were far greater concerns than long term bone density and many more injustices taking place than "forced fluoridating." In fact, fluoride in the drinking water went a long way in alleviating health problems for the poor. This is like the debate over genetically modified foods. Don't eat it if you're suspicious, but they've gone a long way in helping the world, especially those in living in poverty.
|
Ok I'm sorry I admit I was a little harsh. But I got pissed off too much with people calling me stupid left and right, I hope you understand my frustration. No matter, we are all forgiven! Or so I hope.
|
On May 13 2009 10:22 HeadBangaa wrote:
The entire discussion avoids the real matter. The knowledge we have of the effects of substances is always progressing and changing. Before 1970, we were literally bathing in DDT.
The real question is, should we be supplementing tap water at all? The "why not" question is answered in bold in this post, and really puts the burden of proof on the proponents of supplementation.
But then, such a proof is impossible. You can't prove a negative. But what I'm seeing by and large in this thread, are people saying, "Yes you can't prove the negative, and so it doesn't need proving." But then I see the same people arguing over humanity's current body of information.
Stop playing both sides against the middle. Either throw out the facts along with your dismissal or proving a negative, or provide an exhaustive (and impossible) explanation as to why supplementation is safe.
Proving a negative is often difficult. But certain positives should be easy to prove. If flouride has negative health effects, some simple population studies of the incidence of the so called "flouride diseases" would be proof enough to convince me. The populations exists for these studies. We have groups in the United States who recieve the recommended levels of flouride in their water and those that don't. Only 65.8% of the population in the United states has flouride added to their water, and there are plenty of regions where no flouride is added and the population drinks water with less than the recommended levels of .7-1.2 mg/L. All that the flouride opponents need to do is a population study that documents and increased rate of fractures, lower IQs, an increased incidence of endocrine defects, or any of the "flouride diseases" amongst these population groups. I haven't seen any of these claims documented or any studies supporting these arguements. I'm always open to evidence, find one and convince me.
As always we have to compare costs and benefits.
The main benefit of flouride in drinking water is the prevention of dental carries. It is well established that flouride does the following.
(1) inhibition of demineralization at the crystal surfaces inside the tooth, (2) enhancement of remineralization at the crystal surfaces (the resulting remineralized layer is very resistant to acid attack), and (3) inhibition of bacterial enzymes. Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces tooth decay via these mechanisms. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119936928/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The costs are unclear at recommended levels.
|
arod that link won't work for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
