It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The history of water fluoridation can be divided into three periods. The first (c. 1901–1933) was research into the cause of a form of mottled tooth enamel called the Colorado brown stain. The second (c. 1933–1945) focused on the relationship between fluoride concentrations, fluorosis, and tooth decay, and established that moderate levels of fluoride prevent cavities. The third period, from 1945 on, focused on adding fluoride to community water supplies.
Human physiology is the science of the mechanical, physical, bioelectrical, and biochemical functions of humans in good health, their organs, and the cells of which they are composed.
…based on the linked source is very bold and I think made in error.
These organizations, as mere examples, proved that Water fluoridation is a necessity, It's safe and that's why we have it.
(this after having to eliminate most of the studies due to poor data)
The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score.
The assessment of natural versus artificial water fluoridation effects is greatly limited due to the lack of studies making this comparison.
Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.
The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities.
The search was conducted in December 2006. In total, 5418 non-duplicate citations were identified. After reviewing the potentially eligible, 77 citations were included in the review.
After adjusting for significant differences at baseline between the cases and controls, the results of Bassin et al (2006) suggest an increased risk of osteosarcoma amongst young males (but not females) with water fluoridation.
It has become increasingly apparent as I struggle to find good documentation on either side of the debate.
I have a lot more information to quote and link but it will have to wait for a later response
You will find however that while I like to entertain certain theories, I do so from a fact based and scientific based approach. In an attempt to satisfy a need to have government supported sources, I will go straight to the website of the CDC to prove my point.
The widespread availability of fluoride through water fluoridation, toothpaste, and other sources, however, has resulted in the steady decline of dental caries throughout the United States.
 - See my opponents reply to my first Socratic question
Even today, with other available sources of fluoride, studies show that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by about 25 percent over a person’s lifetime.
I simply do not trust politicians and anyone that is in intricately involved in politics
But the simple facts are most people support It rather than are fearful of It, not forgetting such organizations like the WHO or even the ADA. These organizations, as mere examples, proved that Water fluoridation is a necessity, It's safe and that's why we have it.
Just because there hasn’t been a credible study done to look at the risks of fluoridation, does not mean they do not exist.
Skeletal fluorosis is the medical condition in which fluoride substitutes for calcium in bone, causing soft bones that easily deform in growing children
Although skeletal fluorosis has been studied intensely in other countries for more than 40 years, virtually no research has been done in the U.S. to determine how many people are afflicted with the earlier stages of the disease, particularly the preclinical stages. Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed. Even if a doctor is aware of the disease, the early stages are difficult to diagnose. Given this, it may be beneficial for general physicians and neuromuscular specialists to familiarize themselves with this uncommon disease and monitor fluoride levels in patients diagnosed with arthritis over time.
Chronic high-level exposure to fluoride can lead to skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone progressively over many years. The early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis include stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify, with resulting impairment of muscles and pain.
A sea of disinformation? I linked a site to the CDC, Center for Disease Control.
While you are attempting to make it appear that I find them reliable, I think I was rather clear that it is in fact just the opposite.
I think this is a good time for me to retract my answer to Rising Against's 4th Socratic question in his opening statement:
Q4.) Do you trust Organizations such as the WHO, ADA, AMA or perhaps the CDCP? If not, please give an explanation into why...
Although you didn't list the EPA, I really think
In comparison, the most commonly used compound for fluoridation of water, according to your first source, is Fluorosilicic acid. So what exactly is this? I was floored to find out that it is actually a liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. It is very toxic to humans, which is why there are limitations on how much is allowed to be put into our water supply. Problem is, it’s now put into so many things that on average we are ingesting levels well above that limit. This compound is used to make aluminum. Think about that.
Fluoride chemicals for water fluoridation in the UK must meet the specification laid down in the Department of the Environment's Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies.
See above source..
It is often claimed by opponents of fluoridation that the aluminium and phosphate fertiliser industries have a vested interest in promoting water fluoridation. It is worthwhile addressing those claims here.
See above source..
These compounds are manufactured to exacting quality standards and must meet Department of the Environment purity specifications. Fluoride compounds used for water fluoridation are not now, and have never been, obtained as industrial waste.
May I also remind you my esteemed opponent at this point that we are only allowed 10 sentences of external material in our posts…
The article also states:
"Because fluoride is carcinogenic even at such small doses, a sensor is needed to detect fluoride selectively at very low concentrations and in the presence of other naturally occurring and biologically important ions."
Used in the proper amounts, it can make teeth stronger and aid in the treatment of osteoporosis. When excessive amounts are consumed, however, it can be a killer -- a carcinogen that causes bone, lung and bladder cancers
In a remarkable turnabout, federal health officials say many Americans are now getting too much fluoride because of its presence not just in drinking water but in toothpaste, mouthwash and other products, and it's causing splotches on children's teeth and perhaps more serious problems
The Environmental Protection Agency released two new reviews of research on fluoride Friday. One of the studies found that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures and crippling bone abnormalities.
Our 1995 paper in Neurotoxicology and Teratology was the first laboratory study to demonstrate in vivo that central nervous system (CNS) function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues.
We concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.
Fluoride's ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today.
I only had 8 sentences of external text. I made sure to count before posting.
If you read the linked article, you will learn that the study was later contested by one of her colleagues. What WebMD doesn’t go into however, is that the mentioned college Harvard professor Chester W. Douglass, omitted her results from his final report while conducting research on fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma on grants from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. Douglass’s claim that no relationship between fluoride and cancer had been observed
A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).9
A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.
perhaps assuming I am going to take a conspiracy theorist approach to this topic. You will find however that while I like to entertain certain theories, I do so from a fact based and scientific based approach.
Dementia refers to the loss of intellectual functions such as thinking, remembering and reasoning to the extent that a person's daily functioning is affected.
Absolutely. That is what makes it hard to discern what is truth, propaganda and just plain hogwash. As I dig deeper however, I am discovering that the most concerning effects are ones I have never heard of.
In fact, I mentioned in my last post that the reasoning for discussing it then and there was due to it being one of the only truly reliable pieces of statistic we can find in regards to determining whether any introduction of water fluoridation has made an impact in psychological statuses of humans.
Fascinating that my opponent continues to discuss this and bring it up in his post despite the obvious fact that it has been refuted already!
There has been no fluorspar mine production in the United States since 1996; supplies were imported or
Perhaps the most well-known psychological disorders in the elderly are dementia and Alzheimer's disease
Alzheimer's disease is only one of many types of dementia, yet it is often the one most difficult to treat
Is fluoride in part the reason for near epidemic levels of hypothyroidism in the United States? Some experts and researchers believe this is the case.
Fluoride had been used for decades as an effective anti-thyroid medication to treat hyperthyroidism and was frequently used at levels below the current "optimal" intake of 1 mg/day
In conclusion, this study presented evidence that fluoride readily accumulates in the aged pineal. Fluoride may also accumulate in a child's pineal because significant amounts of calcification have been demonstrated in the pineals from young children
This could affect pineal metabolism in much the same way that high local concentrations of fluoride in the developing enamel organ affect ameloblast function
Once absorbed, fluoride binds calcium ions and may lead to hypocalcaemia. Fluoride has direct cytotoxic effects and interferes with a number of enzyme systems; it disrupts oxidative phosphorylation, glycolysis, coagulation, and neurotransmission (by binding calcium).
• Death may result from ingesting as little as 2 g of fluoride in an adult and 16 mg/kg in children. Symptoms may appear with 3-5 mg/kg of fluoride.
And I have shown that Water fluoride is indeed needed for the benefit of man.
The federal government is recommending changing the amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years.
One reason for the increase in fluorosis: Americans now have access to fluoride from a variety of sources, including toothpaste, mouth rinses and prescription supplements, the Department of Health and Human Services says
"We've had to wait too long, but the government's official, belated -- and perhaps begrudging -- announcement marks its recognition that fluoride policies have been out of step with the science on the tap-water additive's toxicity to children, and that many American children are at risk from excess fluoride in drinking water and other sources,"
…documenting that excess fluoride exposure poses dangers that range from discolored teeth to potential hormone disruption and neurotoxicity.
If your teeth looked like the ones pictured above, how would you feel about your smile? Do you think this would affect your social interaction and relationships?
Of course it would. But you seem to be forgetting one thing; fluoride is a natural thing and has been occurring for many years - long before any medical intervention - the same with fluorisis so your question doesn't seem to make much sense.
Do you feel that Alzheimer’s, Dementia and decreased IQ are psychological disorders? Why or why not?
Of course the first two are. The latter I don't believe so at all
Given the long documented affects of fluoride and iodine and its use to treat hyperthyroidism, do not find it logical to conclude too much could then cause hypothyroidism? Do you not think that depression and memory problems would both be considered a relevant Psychological Impact On The Human Physiology?
…So, anyway in reply, yes, I suppose it can be seen as logical to assume it would. Although not factual.
WestCoast wins (even though I don't agree with the answer.) Again, the issue is a well thought out debate. Rising Against does several "okay, read this link" statements but doesn't summarize what's in the link and, frankly, posting cartoons instead of verbiage is a weak tactic. Although I personally agree with RA's side, WC wins the debate.
Rising Against opened this debate with a brief outline of the course that was to come and while it is true that RA provided sourced material to back the stance, the debate did seem to focus more on the opponent and not on the topic. Socratic questions were relevant, but answers given to Socratic questions asked, were short and did not provide much depth. RA did allow some off topic information to muddy the argument (suicide statistics) and I felt that did not help the case. It was not until the 3rd response that RA really began to focus on providing the reader information relevant to the argument and keep the topic moving forward. Though the closing statement was short, it was succinct and to the point.
westcoast also opened strong and from the beginning, the reader was made aware of the fighter’s thought process, how the information to support the topic was going to be provided and why it would be laid out this way. westcoast used sourced material that was relevant to the topic, as well as continually moving the debate forward, further strengthening the argument. Socratic questions asked were relevant and answered with relevance, though a few were left short winded.
All in all, a very interesting debate topic, well fought by both fighters and loaded with good information.
Debate winner: westcoast