flouride causes cavities... so why push it on us?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I personally think that, although there are some problems with fluoridation, such as staining in higher doses, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Benifits for whom?

Fluoride compounds are in more than just prozac.......i believe 20% of all tranquilizers. Also, Royphenol, the Date Rape drug, is valium with an added fluoride compound....making it 20 times stronger than valium alone.

Dental benefits of fluoride are for topical application......Fluorisis, a dental condition where calcium is replaced and tooth decay occurs, is caused by fluoride in overdose......which is not uncommon since fluoride is found almost everywhere these days, take a look at my link at the top of the page....

Fluoride problems are far outweighing the positives......forced medication of an element that has caused this much controversy is uncouth.

memory shock says:

Benifits for whom?

The majority of people who take it, in my opinion, which is shared by most scientific societies, including the ADA.

"Fluoride compounds are in more than just prozac.......i believe 20% of all tranquilizers. Also, Royphenol, the Date Rape drug, is valium with an added fluoride compound....making it 20 times stronger than valium alone."

Please re-read my comment on the lack of correlation between an element and a compound and between a compound in one formulation and one in another formulation.

"Dental benefits of fluoride are for topical application......Fluorisis, a dental condition where calcium is replaced and tooth decay occurs, is caused by fluoride in overdose......which is not uncommon since fluoride is found almost everywhere these days, take a look at my link at the top of the page...."

I agree. Fluoride in overdose is a causative factor in fluorisis, and people should not take any more fluoride than what is necessary to fight caries.

"Fluoride problems are far outweighing the positives......"

I disagree, and so do most scientists. But this is a (more or less) free country; we are certainly allowed to disagree.

"forced medication of an element that has caused this much controversy is uncouth."

I would not say it is uncouth; I would say it is wrong. The government should not be addding anything to its water, since they seem to have an economic monopoly over its delivery.

However, even though I am a libertarian, the philosophical discussion of the proper role of government is not my point. What my point is is that many people here are simply arguing the pros and cons of fluoridation from ignorance.

And whatever your views on fluoridation are, we are here to deny ignorance.


[edit on 22-3-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Thank you, Off the Street...
it is nice to have your experience/knowledge on this thread..

you seem to agree that flouride should not be added to drinking water...
but contest it's true amount of danger...

I would like your comments on:
the FDA not approving of flouride to be ingested internally...
or did i get that info wrong?

also the little piece on Stalin using it in his prison camps to maintain order...

I hate to load you down with questions, but I do appreciate your input...

what, if any, studies are you familiar with that discuss the toxicity rates, buildup duration within the body/rate of absorbsion.
the concern I have here, is that evidence seems to indicate that the body can only absorb so much, and it doesn't flush out the excess, instead stores it in connective tissues and bones... (where it can cause harm)

it would seem that a little flouride while children are growing isn't too terrible of a thing, but increased amounts throughout life (drinking water, meds, mouthwash) can cause the problems we are talking about...

a lifetime is a long time to accumulate a toxin that is in so many things...

thank you again, off the street... because you are correct... ignorance is not our friend...
now let us explore the deep truth...
and thank you memory shock for helping to find this truth...
and thank you again to all posters...

[edit on 22-3-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

Lazarus the Long says:

"you seem to agree that flouride should not be added to drinking water...

The problem I have with fluoride compounds being added to the municipal water supply is that the people have no say as to whether they should choose it or not. This is wrong; even if the addition of fluoride to drinking water were not controversial, I do not like, on principle, the government medicating its citizens.

And as for the true amount of danger, neither I nor anyone else here (and probably no one else, period) knows the true extent of danger from fluoride usage.

It depends, I believe, on how much fluoride one takes in, as well as the body's tolerance to fluoride, and its contraindications. My guess (and that's all we're really doing here -- guessing) is that, in most cases , the benefits outweigh the disadvantages; but it would be a lot better if each person could judge his or her own optimum levels of fluoride ingestion.

"I would like your comments on: the FDA not approving of flouride to be ingested internally..."

That's not surprising; a lot of drugs are considered safe for topical use, but not for internal use; others for both topical and internal use. Some of the older topical antiseptics, such as mercurochrome, merthiolate, and tincture of iodine, are very dangerous when taken internally, but were used by generations of people as a topical defense against infection.

As a matter of fact, colloidal silver, which is touted as a cure for a lot of things, was never approved of for internal use, since the amount of colloidal silver required to defeat an internal infection (which it does, in high enough concentrations) would cause undesirable side effects, such as permanent skin discoloration.

"...or did i get that info wrong?"

I don't know, but I assume you're right. High concentrations of fluoride internally probably aren't all that good for you, just like a fungicide cream isn't.

"...also the little piece on Stalin using it in his prison camps to maintain order... "

Everything I have seen about Hitler and/or Stalin and fluoride being used to instill passivity in its subjects seems to start with a quote by a person named Charles Perkins who made a bunch of claims to the fact in 1954. Borkin, in his book "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" quotes Perkins, but, like Perkins, does not give names or quotes any study.

I have seen nothing an any scientific literature of fluoride compounds being shown to cause passivity; certainly with large numbers of people on fluoride, there has to be enough raw data out there for a researcher do do a chi-sqaure or ANOVA z-crit study using standard passivity indicators, i.e., arrests for violent crimes, to determine if there's a correlation. Given that there are a bunch of people that would dearly love to see a positive correlation as a vindication of their beliefs, it is a bit suspicious that no one has done any research on this -- or at least has not published it.

And of coruse, as I mentioned earlier, fluoride compounds were used to strengthen teeth before either Stalin or Hitler were even born.

"what, if any, studies are you familiar with that discuss the toxicity rates, buildup duration within the body/rate of absorbsion. the concern I have here, is that evidence seems to indicate that the body can only absorb so much, and it doesn't flush out the excess, instead stores it in connective tissues and bones... (where it can cause harm)."

That's quite possible. I have no expertise whatsoever in the field; I took exactly one biochemistry course in my whole life. I am not familiar with any studies at all, except that just about all of the mainstream boys, including the American Dental Association (ADA), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and so on, seem to think that the studies out there have shown its efficacy and effectiveness.

I think that just about every person here, gets his opinion by reading and accepting the opinions of others who he trusts and respects. I am certainly not someone who blindly trusts the government, but when I see all the professional societies saying it's cost effective and people like David Icke saying it's not ...

...well, I'm sure you understand whom I tend to follow.

"it would seem that a little flouride while children are growing isn't too terrible of a thing, but increased amounts throughout life (drinking water, meds, mouthwash) can cause the problems we are talking about... "

You're right; they could. All we have to go on is to find out what studies have been performed and evaluate them -- or (and this is what we're going to do because we're not scientists), is to agree with an individual or a group or a group of groups that we have reason to believe are objective and knowlegeable.

I hope my posts here would at least add to the discussion. I am not an expert, nor do I pretend to be one; in the techno-world of today, normal folks like you and I are forced to take some views as gospel and build our opinions from them.

For that reason, it's incumbent on all of us to choose whom we will believe and make that a wise choice.

To all:

Good topic.

I cannot resist making this post for those that have an uncanny ability to claim they are promoting the "deny ignornace" motto for this site and, at the same time, are doing that exact thing.

One thing is for sure - the fact about flouride being detrimental to out health is not a "guess" - it is fact.

The following official article - backed by approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. - is pretty good proof about the harm that floridation of water causes:

www.fluoridation.com...

I believe this same article was responsible for the Australian Capital Territory (where all the pollies live), to BAN flouride from their drinking water.

And another one that the above one was extracted from:

www.organicconsumers.org...

So, as you can see, studies have been made.

Personally, I have been drinking industrial filtered water for approximately 23 years, have been drinking distilled water for 8 years, do not use flouride toothpaste and I suffer from no tooth decay, never get sick and look 10 years younger than I am. Sure, it may be good genetics, however I believe it's just down to drinking good water...with colloidal silver as a backup if I do get an odd sniffle.

BTW, for those that distill their water - expose it to the sun for a brief moment in time (a few minutes in enough) to "re-crystalize" it. It tastes sweeter and is better for you.

Cheers

JS

I love the progress...
thank you off the street, and thank you jump space...
that is indeed a good article...

NOW EVERYONE READ IT... please, please, please with lots of tooth decaying sugar on top...

anyone know a good scientist/doctor in the house... it would be very nice to get better info on the absorbtion rate, to see just what has been happening inside all the overflouridated people in the world...

jumpspace, you bring up some interesting points. However, I feel I should make a few comments on some of them.

"One thing is for sure - the fact about flouride being detrimental to out health is not a "guess" - it is fact."

I don't think anyone who is honest would disagree with you, just as just about anyone with any honesty would argue against the other statement that fluoride is also good for you.

The question which we must answer is simply whether the benefits of fluoridation outweigh the dangers.

"The following official article - backed by approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. - is pretty good proof about the harm that floridation of water causes:"

The "official" article is an official union article, prepared by the union leadership, not by scientists. Not all the scientists backed the article; indeed, I'd be willing to bet that many of the scientists didn't even know about the article.

And while we're on the subject of the union, according to their own website, they represent 150,000 people; I'd doubt that more than one percent of them are EPA scientists.

This doesn't mean that the article is wrong, but I think you should at least tell us some of the background of your sources so we can draw our own conclusions about possible agendas and biases.

"And another one that the above one was extracted from: www.organicconsumers.org... So, as you can see, studies have been made."

The article was written by a chemistry teacher (who may or may not be a researcher); his wife, a newsletter editor; and an internet webmaster. Again, this may be valid, but these folks aren't researchers publishing in a juried journal.

"... however I believe it's just down to drinking good water...with colloidal silver as a backup if I do get an odd sniffle."

Perhaps. But that's not research; it's anecdotal evidence. I know people who are 80, and can kick my butt; they drink fluoridated water all the time and have for decades. Are we to believe, therefore, that the fluoride caused them to stay healthy? No, not any more than the lack of it is responsible for your health.

"BTW, for those that distill their water - expose it to the sun for a brief moment in time (a few minutes in enough) to "re-crystalize" it. It tastes sweeter and is better for you."

I thought the only "crystallization" in water was when it turned to ice. Are you saying that exposure to sunlight will cause "crystallization" in water? I haen never seen such a thing, nor have I ever heard about it.

And how is it "better" for you?

I agree that pouring water back and forth in containers sometimes improves the taste, but that is because the pouring actually aerates the water -- something that can be -- and has been -- measured.

But your "crystallized" water which is "good for you" delves into a specialty of science with which neither I nor anyone I know is familiar.

Off_The_Street:

I agree with the base question:

Is flouride a benefit or not?

I quickly perused a reference from the union article and found the following abstracts:

"The results of this study indicated that intake of high-fluoride drinking water from before birth has a significant deleterious influence on children's IQ in on of two similar villages. No real differences were found for gender. In the high-fluoride village of Sima the number of children with IQ of 69 or below was six times that in the healthier low-fluoride village of Xinghua."

"...more rats died in the AlF3 group than in the control group."

"The results demonstrate that the contents of phospholipid and ubiquinone are modified in brains affected by chronic fluorosis and these changes of membrane lipids could be involved in the pathogenesis of this disease."

This is from a quick perusal - I would think there is more damaging evidence is more articles were read.

Flouridation probably does benefit us in terms of whiter teeth maybe, but I reckon non-flouridated water is the way to go

As for the "crystalization" of water when distilled then exposed to the Sun - yes, you are right. Crystalization occurs when water turns to ice - I summarized too much If you distill water without exposing it to the sun, the crystalline structure looks like mud when the water turns to ice. If you expose it to the sun then it takes on a "normal" crystalline structure (ie 6 sided crystals). Also "thoughts" (or energy I believe) can alter the state of distilled water. He's an interesting URL:

www.mercola.com...

Here's another URL that explains the crystalline structure etc of "standard" distilled water:

www.mercola.com...#

Cheers

JS


[edit on 23-3-2005 by jumpspace]

Studies are unreliable and often contradict each other. I would like to know the scientific basis for stating that flouride causes cavities. Cavitities are caused by acids eating away enamel that makes up teeth. ( that is why I use a straw when I drink juice- or anything acidic) Sodium flouride rects with the enamel, causing a thin layer of fluride around the teeth. Kind of like paint on a steel bridge. The flouride resists acid attacks (flourides are very stable) and therefore prevents cavities. Of course the dosage is important.