Next Level BS #38: Water Fluoridation, The Facts, The Crazy, and the Reality

a reply to: Konduit

Do you not think that the fluoride would come in contact with your teeth if it was in the water?

a reply to: superman2012

Toothpaste works just fine.

Like I said, drinking fluoride for your teeth makes as much sense as drinking sunscreen for your skin. If it's trying to correct a topical problem, why would you ingest and saturate your entire body with it?

a reply to: Konduit

Your body would absorb more through toothpaste than through the water.
There are reasons (although, I believe they are dated) why it was/is added.
I don't think saturate means what you think it means.

ps- that is the worst analogy that I have ever seen on a meme btw, it is the most overused one anyways on anti-fluoride sites. If it said:

Rubbing fluoride on your face to protect your teeth makes as much sense as drinking sunscreen for your skin, then I could understand what they were trying to say (even though that isn't the truth either).

a reply to: superman2012

Saturate; to cause (a substance) to unite with the greatest possible amount of another substance, through solution, chemical combination, or the like.

You don't drink toothpaste, you don't bathe with toothpaste, you don't cook with toothpaste, and 50-75% of your body doesn't consist of toothpaste.

a reply to: Konduit

Right. Now that we've established the obvious.

The level in toothpaste is much higher than what is found in water.

Saturate:
cause (something) to become thoroughly soaked with liquid so that no more can be absorbed.

Either definition wording does not apply to water fluoridation.

originally posted by: Konduit
Drinking fluoride for your teeth is like drinking sunscreen for your skin.

Not really the same thing at all. Fluoride has systemic benefits for bones and teeth enamel. Suncreen, and it's additives have no systemic benefits. BUT you can consume fluoride rich products for melanoma protection.

6 Foods That Will Protect You From The Sun

Green and Black teas (which actually start as leafy greens -- surprise, surprise) are packed with polyphenols that can help stop cancer development by limiting the blood supply to the cancerous area. Some studies have found that green tea can help prevent non-melanoma skin cancer (in addition to some other amazing health benefits. One study also found that people who drink one cup of tea per day have a lower incidence of melanoma.

originally posted by: Metallicus
This is a freedom of choice issue.

Regardless of your stance on water fluoridation, we should have the opportunity to decide what we take into our bodies. It is like telling a vegetarian they must eat meat. Sure it isn't going to hurt them, but they should have the right to choose what they put in their body.

Nope. You use public services. There is a democratic process into hos those services are performed and provided. Votes were held, policy set. You lost.

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: theNLBS

Israel banned fluoride, in tap water, and we all know they are extremely slow over there. (Rolls eyes)

www.jpost.com...

But hey we all know the USA is a free country, and we are founded on everyone's individual rights and choices, so putting fluoride in water is not an infringement of freedoms? (Rolls eyes again)

Oh wait I think I'll forego the municipal water and save rain water. Oh wait that is illegal in many states to now. smh

You realize that no one forces you to drink tap water, right? Just saying.

The opening post now contains an experimental embed of the Trello board we use for research and topic development.

originally posted by: theNLBS

originally posted by: Konduit
Drinking fluoride for your teeth is like drinking sunscreen for your skin.

Not really the same thing at all. Fluoride has systemic benefits for bones and teeth enamel. Suncreen, and it's additives have no systemic benefits. BUT you can consume fluoride rich products for melanoma protection..

No it does not.

Never has fluoride been found to be beneficial to teeth enamel or for bones.

Just the opposite has been found everywhere.

Anyways good luck to you, you can start lobbying for it when its banned worldwide as one of the dumbest things science was ever used to promote.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Any sources? Every science paper on it, has proven otherwise.

Where is your proof?

Your mom telling you it is bad for you doesn't count.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: ParasuvO

Any sources? Every science paper on it, has proven otherwise.

Where is your proof?

Your mom telling you it is bad for you doesn't count.

Damn, you're quicker than I am.

Yeah, I'm curious too if you got any sources. It's ok, I'll wait.

a reply to: theNLBS

Probably just another "hit and run" post. I wish the name appeared if you hovered your cursor over the star...curious who agrees with that, and why they don't answer for that person...

Edit: Another star! Anyone who keeps starring that willing to share with the class the reasons why they agree?

a reply to: artistpoet

Water here in the UK is fluoridated and i'm surprised you don't know that

a reply to: superman2012

Probably just another "hit and run"

Not really. accounts are being shut down.

I will play.

24 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children
Three studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired neurobehavioral development
Three studies have reported damage to the brain of aborted fetuses in high fluoride areas, and
Over 100 laboratory studies have reported damage to the brain and/or cognitive function among fluoride-exposed animals3.
Most of the 30 studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development, and fetal brain damage have come from China where fluoride occurs at moderate to high levels in the drinking water in what is known as "endemic areas for fluorosis." While there have been shortcomings in the methodologies of some of these studies, they have been remarkably consistent in their findings. Children exposed to excessive fluoride have been consistently observed to suffer from some form of neurological impairment

Link

Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” most of the western world, including the vast majority of western Europe, does not fluoridate its water supply.

At present, 97% of the western European population drinks non-fluoridated water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain. Although some of these countries fluoridate their salt, the majority do not. (The only western European countries that allow salt fluoridation are Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland.)

Despite foregoing “one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” tooth decay rates have declined in Europe as precipitously over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises serious questions about the CDC’s assertion that the decline of tooth decay in the United States since the 1950s is largely attributable to the advent of water fluoridation.

May 2007: A study of European public opinion on water fluoridation, published in the journal Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology, reports that the “vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation.” According to the study, Europeans opposed fluoridation for the following reasons:

“Many felt dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse. While people accepted that some children were not encouraged to brush their teeth, they proposed other solutions to addressing these needs rather than having a solution of unproved safety imposed on them by public health authorities whom they did not fully trust. They did not see why they should accept potential side effects in order that a minority may benefit. In particular, water was something that should be kept as pure as possible, even though it was recognized that it already contains many additives.”

link

Conducted by K. Pratap Reddy of Osmania University in India, the study confirms that fluoride chemicals "cross the blood-brain barrier and alter the structure and function of neural tissue." Repeated exposure to fluoride chemicals in test rats was found to lower body weights; reduce the organic somatic index of their brains; and contaminate their hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum, spinal cord, and sciatic nerve tissues with persistent fluoride chemicals.

The blood-brain barrier is the body's natural way of protecting the brain and central nervous system from damage by harmful toxins. In other words, it is meant to allow only nutrients and other beneficial metabolic products access to the brain, while filtering out all other materials.

But fluoride chemicals possess uniquely harmful characteristics that allow them to bypass this protective barrier and lodge themselves within brain tissue. The end result is a cascade of neurodegeneration throughout the brain and central nervous system, which in turn can lead to a host of severe and potentially deadly conditions, some of which are irreversible.

Compared to rats not given sodium fluoride, those given the chemicals as part of the study experienced "vacuolation of Schwann cells with enlarged axons and disrupted myelin sheaths" in their sciatic nerves; "irregular nuclei with normal nucleoli, vacuolated cytosol and axons with split myelin," in their spinal cords; and altered morphology in cerebellar tissue that resulted in "dumbbell shaped and [crenulated] nuclear membrane."

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...##ixzz3ScAOXspY

Link

Now if you are ok giving this to your kids then that is your choice, but don't tell everyone it is good because of your buddy's youtube video says it is good.


is this some new way for ATS to get funding?



edit to add:

This is on drudge report right now.

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists
Around 15,000 people could be suffering needlessly from thyroid problems because of fluoride in drinking water, the University of Kent has warned

A study of 98 per cent of GP practices in England found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30 per cent more likely in areas of the greatest fluoridation.
It could mean that up to 15,000 people are suffering needlessly from thyroid problems which can cause depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.

link

a reply to: SkipperJohn

Not really. accounts are being shut down. I will play.

Yes it is too bad that people cannot control themselves and it's too bad that we aren't privy to the private U2U's that they send out to mods and other people thinking that the U2U's are not covered under the Terms and Conditions...

Anyways, on to my responses..

24 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children Three studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired neurobehavioral development

Have a link to the studies or are we talking about the Harvard Study which was really a metastudy done of the Chinese and Iran studies dealing with extremely high levels of fluoride in raw water (not treated water)?

Over 100 laboratory studies have reported damage to the brain and/or cognitive function among fluoride-exposed animals3.

What were the levels? Again, you have a link to this study?

Most of the 30 studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development, and fetal brain damage have come from China where fluoride occurs at moderate to high levels in the drinking water in what is known as "endemic areas for fluorosis." While there have been shortcomings in the methodologies of some of these studies, they have been remarkably consistent in their findings. Children exposed to excessive fluoride have been consistently observed to suffer from some form of neurological impairment

Ahhh, it is the "Harvard Study" as I suspected. What does this have to do with water fluoridation? Of course it is harmful in high levels. Eat a pound of salt at a sitting. Drink 20 L of water in a day. Etc.

Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” most of the western world, including the vast majority of western Europe, does not fluoridate its water supply.

Right. They voted plus they also put it in salt. That option isn't available in North America.

Despite foregoing “one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” tooth decay rates have declined in Europe as precipitously over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises serious questions about the CDC’s assertion that the decline of tooth decay in the United States since the 1950s is largely attributable to the advent of water fluoridation.

I'm willing to concede this, although I would like to know the stats on dental visits per person then vs now and how many people visit a dentist on a regular basis now vs then. There are many more factors that need to be considered other than fluoride in making these connections.

The quote that starts with "May 2007" isn't even worth responding to as it deals with opposing something because of a personal feeling or choice. Nothing to do with the science behind this.

Conducted by K. Pratap Reddy of Osmania University in India, the study confirms that fluoride chemicals "cross the blood-brain barrier and alter the structure and function of neural tissue." Repeated exposure to fluoride chemicals in test rats was found to lower body weights; reduce the organic somatic index of their brains; and contaminate their hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum, spinal cord, and sciatic nerve tissues with persistent fluoride chemicals.

Did you actually read that study!?!? 20 ppm!??!? In the US it is in the water at .7 ppm. Even the Harvard study was only around the 4 - 7 ppm. It has been said again and again on this thread...moderation is key.

Now if you are ok giving this to your kids then that is your choice, but don't tell everyone it is good because of your buddy's youtube video says it is good.

I sure am okay with fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpaste. The youtube video didn't say it was good, but rather tried to dispel the rumours and the funny fears associated with it. It's clear that the majority on this thread didn't even bother watching it...

Your drudge report link:
I wasn't aware they had proven that fluoride causes thyroid disease. I realize water fluoridation is a contentious issue and people are looking for reasons not to put it in the water, but the strong language they use is ridiculous!

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists

Fluoride could be causing depression and weight gain and councils should stop adding it to drinking water to prevent tooth decay

It could mean that up to 15,000 people are suffering needlessly from thyroid problems

But new research from the University of Kent suggests that

May, could, suggest....those words are pretty indicative of a theory. Until it is proven, it is just more fuel for the fearful.

a reply to: superman2012

Lmao you really do have super human posting endurance. God only knows why anyone would be so unrelenting in their support of such an outdated practice. But hey at least you're consistent.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: superman2012

Lmao you really do have super human posting endurance. God only knows why anyone would be so unrelenting in their support of such an outdated practice. But hey at least you're consistent.

I like learning new things and researching this has taught me a lot of my chosen work field. Plus, I get the added opportunity of teaching people new things as well. It's just up to them whether or not they choose to learn. You've been a big part of that.

Edit: I never said I support it, only that I understand the reasoning behind it. There's a lot of grey in the world...not everything is so black and white. I'm consistent in my support of the facts and science. Thanks for that.

originally posted by: superman2012
I never said I support it, only that I understand the reasoning behind it.

For someone who doesn't support it you're rather persistent in the defense of it. Even if you're just arguing there's nothing wrong with it, that's a position in support of it. Especially when you go to such great lengths to refute every single argument presented even though some people are making very persuasive arguments which seem stronger than the ones you are making. It's one thing to expose the myths of fluoride, it's another to relentlessly defend something which you say you don't even support.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: superman2012
I never said I support it, only that I understand the reasoning behind it.

For someone who doesn't support it you're rather persistent in the defense of it. Even if you're just arguing there's nothing wrong with it, that's a position in support of it. Especially when you go to such great lengths to refute every single argument presented even though some people are making very persuasive arguments which seem stronger than the ones you are making. It's one thing to expose the myths of fluoride, it's another to relentlessly defend something which you say you don't even support.

I never said I didn't support it either. I don't care either way as it should be a non-issue. I see it doing good, but I also feel it has had it's time in the sun and they should start looking at better ways.
Refuting bad science and lies (especially the same ones presented by your side over and over) is fun because most people don't even realize they've been duped, or that they are spouting the same things that have been shown to be lies, but are hidden under another fear title.
Meh. People need something to fear, and monsters aren't real so why not make something up that is in real life, right?

Edit: Their persuasive arguments are neither persuasive nor rooted in fact and science. I backed up every claim, backed up every "fact" of theirs that I have refuted. Can they say the same?