It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I neither have the time nor wherewithal to repeat all of that again with cites it is there, and you can find it quicker and start researching quicker than I can.

Besides that we have a few posters rabidly defending something more than an average person would, which leads me to the conclusion of industry advocates.

Fluoride is produced by processing dirt in the mining of aluminum, aluminum is not found as gold or other such ores in mining, it has to be process out of soil. The process uses fluorine gas to extract the aluminum and the by-product or toxic waste is called fluoride.

The trace mineral naturally found in plants, was processed by the plant during it's feeding cycle making it safe to the system. The by product of mining aluminum has not been processed in such a manner it carries the aluminum isotope with it on the atomic level, aluminum poisoning leads to Alzheimer's.

With as much aluminum that we use the amounts of toxic waste would be called an environmental disaster, instead of disposing of it we are used to process it because we have some natural tolerance of it from evolution... but at these levels of exposure, we have not yet evolved enough as a species to negate it's effects.

Those in bed with the corporations in this thread; defending it should be ashamed. Children have died in the dentist chair from flouride treatments from toxic shock. Have you no conscience of life value over money?




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Whether fluoride is bad for you or not is irrelevant in the end. In a free society, we should have the freedom to decide what we put in to our bodies. If we wish to ingest fluoride for any benefits it may have, that is our choice.


If more Americans had your values, there might be something here for the next generation.
There aren't many more and there won't be anything left.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Thanks for the replies.

In the end yeah if places want to have it in the water supply, etc., they are going to nonetheless. Can some kind of proven research be shown to change minds of those in charge locally, perhaps.

That's where the issue of choice lies, whether someone doesn't want to ingest for their own reasons or down to seeing truth in it being harmful(or lack of proof for benefit), they should have a choice. However, drinking local water that contains possible harmful amounts(non natural) and they city won't change, then there's bottled water. Then they have to find a trusted source of that bottled water that doesn't contain it, let alone soft drinks, etc using water from tap.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: superman2012

I wish I could discover what you get out of pushing an agenda that harms human health especially in the development of children. You are simply dead wrong in your broad brush painting of 'truth' and 'anti-truth'. The ideas you have presented are so far from reality that it will be impossible to take seriously anything else you post on any subject.

fluoridealert.org...

What I get out of pushing an agenda? How does water fluoridation harm human health? Please list your sources, as it was your claim. Please link to me research (not your crazy fluoride alert page that is full of lies) that proves any of your points and I will be more than happy to read.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: superman2012
And not for dental care either ? That is a teeth cleaner , right ? That makes it a teeth whitener .Then why is it there ? Perhaps you can find the answer on Snopes.... I am done for the night.


Cleaning a tooth and whitening a tooth are completely different animals.

Who uses snopes for something that is (or should be) common knowledge? You aren't just done for the night my friend, you tucked your lies and useless arguments into bed long ago.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
Dentist will not let their kids brush with that crap. So something is up.

All dentists!?!? Do you have a source or is this just something you read on an anti-fluoride page? lol



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012
I do. My dentist tells everyone the reason they are losing their enamel is fluoride. They recommend toothpaste containing no fluoride and will give you a list.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: superman2012
And not for dental care either ? That is a teeth cleaner , right ? That makes it a teeth whitener .Then why is it there ? Perhaps you can find the answer on Snopes.... I am done for the night.


Cleaning a tooth and whitening a tooth are completely different animals.

Who uses snopes for something that is (or should be) common knowledge? You aren't just done for the night my friend, you tucked your lies and useless arguments into bed long ago.

I dont banter words with anyone. And some of the posts you made almost copy what you can find on snopes and other like sites.All you have to do is put some of what has been posted here in your favorite search engine and go....
edit on 1-7-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog
Oh okay, so another personal anecdote.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: superman2012
And not for dental care either ? That is a teeth cleaner , right ? That makes it a teeth whitener .Then why is it there ? Perhaps you can find the answer on Snopes.... I am done for the night.


Cleaning a tooth and whitening a tooth are completely different animals.

Who uses snopes for something that is (or should be) common knowledge? You aren't just done for the night my friend, you tucked your lies and useless arguments into bed long ago.

I dont banter words with anyone. And some of the posts you made almost copy what you can find on snopes and other like sites.

That's funny! Goes to show that it is common knowledge...also goes to show that knowledge isn't too common with the fearful.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: fyredansyr
There is hope that more people will realize that water shouldn't be fluoridated. I live in a small town that used to fluoridate the water and less than a year ago they stopped. Hopefully more towns and cities decide to do this.

Why did they stop? Are peoples health improving now? Was there any fluoride in the raw (untreated) water?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake


If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

Included is questioning the outdated research on fluoride and lack of research that is being questioned: Such as about adverse effects of fluoride. Included is that there's a lack of evidence for it for help stop dental caries in adults. Also, there's a lack of research about effects from fluoride other than in the mouth.

Being shared in the MSM while not breaking news.

Moving from conspiracy to a valid concern? More about making money off of fluoridation in water systems than caring for safety and stopping cavities?
Thoughts?



“The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.
-OP Source
Lol, it's always fun when science catches up to real-world observations. If fluoride prevents cavities so well, then how come my kid had so many stinking cavities?

Yes, she's a regular habitual brusher of the teeth. No, she doesn't chow down on candy 24/7.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnFisher
Unfortunately (or fortunately in this case) the science doesn't say what the fearful believe.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: JohnFisher
Unfortunately (or fortunately in this case) the science doesn't say what the fearful believe.

Personally, I don't care too much about the supposed adverse effects of fluoridated water. Yeah, it probably does at least affect IQ. Makes sense. Lol, just look at our brilliant culture. But... I was just making an attempt at humor by pointing out that as a preventative for cavities it sure doesn't seem to work very well.
edit on 722015 by JohnFisher because: Tired. Fixed before anyone has chance to read.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
With the obvious exception of fluoride in my toothpaste, I absolutely refuse to take in any more than that, if I have control over it.

I do not drink tap water, and I use distilled water for cooking. I realize that I have ingested some from restaurants and such, but that's sadly unavoidable. I keep it to the bare minimum. That's the best I can do.

It should be banned from use in municipal water systems immediately.

Whether it's good for our teeth or not, it should not be in my water unless I decide to add it.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: FyreByrd

I neither have the time nor wherewithal to repeat all of that again with cites it is there, and you can find it quicker and start researching quicker than I can.

Besides that we have a few posters rabidly defending something more than an average person would, which leads me to the conclusion of industry advocates.



As I said, I don't doubt you, I've done a bit of research myself and avoid and filter-out flouride myself.

As a point of presentation - this response will largely just gather you ridicule. There are rabid defenders of various "practises' that are IMO harmful to life. They will take a lack of support as being 'hearsay' or 'made up' while offering little or no support themselves. Some will and then, if YOU want to invest the time, will have your homework.

Don't let it stop you - but do start keeping links to your sources especially on subjects you feel powerfully about. Then your sources will be attacked. Just keep at it.

It's rather analogous to entering a new MMG (Massively Mult-Player Game), or so I hear, don't play them, where certain players, in order to build thier stature, attack the newbies coming in for the first time. It's a type of bullying.
edit on 2-7-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: FyreByrd

I neither have the time nor wherewithal to repeat all of that again with cites it is there, and you can find it quicker and start researching quicker than I can.

Besides that we have a few posters rabidly defending something more than an average person would, which leads me to the conclusion of industry advocates.



As I said, I don't doubt you, I've done a bit of research myself and avoid and filter-out flouride myself.

As a point of presentation - this response will largely just gather you ridicule. There are rabid defenders of various "practises' that are IMO harmful to life. They will take a lack of support as being 'hearsay' or 'made up' while offering little or no support themselves. Some will and then, if YOU want to invest the time, will have your homework.

Don't let it stop you - but do start keeping links to your sources especially on subjects you feel powerfully about. Then your sources will be attacked. Just keep at it.

It's rather analogous to entering a new MMG (Massively Mult-Player Game), or so I hear, don't play them, where certain players, in order to build thier stature, attack the newbies coming in for the first time. It's a type of bul


There are rabid defenders of various "practises' that are IMO harmful to life.

Everyone is welcome to their opinions. The only thing I attack are people trying to pass gossip, rumours, and lies as the truth. I either invite them to do more research themselves, or take a look at my links (if I present them). Sadly, most have no desire to learn and instead decide to stay in Fearville.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
There was an interesting study conducted at Harvard (source linked below) - here's a snippet from a summary:



The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”


Source: www.hsph.harvard.edu... health-grandjean-choi/

If the problem is cavities in the teeth of children, surely the answer is not "medicating" the water supply of an entire population. Under 14 year olds make up around 19% of the population in the US and UK (source below); why should the rest of a given population (the remaining 80%+) be forced into consuming tainted water, especially given that we now know that (a) fluoride is not all that effective at preventing cavities, and (b) studies have shown it to have an impact on mental health and development of children.

Population ages 0-14 (as %)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BenutzerUnbekannt
Unfortunately that often cited Harvard study takes the research from Chinese, Iran, and India papers. None of which had anything to do with water fluoridation, only with extremely high levels of fluoride in raw (untreated) water.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: BenutzerUnbekannt
Unfortunately that often cited Harvard study takes the research from Chinese, Iran, and India papers. None of which had anything to do with water fluoridation, only with extremely high levels of fluoride in raw (untreated) water.



If we were debating this in a college debating society, I would say 'fair point and well made', but in the real world, the findings are conclusive either way:



Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence. Children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-exposure or control areas. Our findings are consistent with an earlier review (Tang et al. 2008),


Despite of the bizarre weasel words of apologists, there is no escaping the fact that fluoride is a neurotoxin and is detrimental to human health, even in small doses.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join