Where is the demand for fluoride "ENHANCED" water coming from?

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
If the bottles didn't say "with added fluoride" then we could speculate about the evils of some power trying to poison us. As it is, someone is buying it because of the fluoride. If not by humans, I have to go with the evil zog overlords who must be present on our planet and require fluoride to stay alive.

S&F

How would we know if it was added if it didn't say added? I think the fluoride campaign was a success. They don't need to hide it anymore since it's so good for all of us. Just like mercury, and GMO's.

a reply to: Phage

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that hydrofluorosilicic acid, what is used in water fluoridation, is a byproduct of aluminum processing.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Or you could do the research yourself instead of trying to trust other people.

You're right. I don't trust the people at the Fluoride Action Network. I'll do my own research.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Or you could do the research yourself instead of trying to trust other people.

If i was to research everything for myself i would never get anything done.

if i had to research every part of my car before agreeing with the mechanic, if i had to study up to be come a surgeon before i go under the knife, if i had to research the pro's and con's of everything i eat i would never eat. This line "do your own research annoys me", it implies that you basically don't think I have a clue what i am talking about (to be clear I don't).

Besides I could go and google "how to remove my own tooth" and do all the research on the best way to do it but at the end of the day I am going to get a professional do do it for me.

So when a respected dentist says to me "you have the start of some tooth decay there buddy, try this toothpaste", again I am going to agree with him over the guy on internet.

I mean really, why is it ok for you to trust the people at the "Fluride action network" but not ok for me to trust my dentist.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Bottled water is most times worse than tap water because they have so many additives. Most bottled water is just tap water.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Or you could do the research yourself instead of trying to trust other people.

You're right. I don't trust the people at the Fluoride Action Network. I'll do my own research.

This always kind of gets on my nerves a little bit on ATS.

People don't know how to research things, if the OP was writing a academic critique of fluoride and used the FAN as a source it would be ripped to bits. I know this isn't academia but at the very least i wish members who use sources that are clearly bias one way over another that they would at least acknowledge the confirmation bias at play.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Phage

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that hydrofluorosilicic acid, what is used in water fluoridation, is a byproduct of aluminum processing.

You're wrong.
Hydrofluorosilicic acid, sometimes used in artificial fluoridation, is not a byproduct of aluminum processing. It is used in the refining of aluminum. It is a raw material, used sort of like a catalyst and recycled. Aluminum plants buy it, they don't sell it.
www.buss-ct.com...

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Or you could do the research yourself instead of trying to trust other people.

You're right. I don't trust the people at the Fluoride Action Network. I'll do my own research.

This always kind of gets on my nerves a little bit on ATS.

People don't know how to research things, if the OP was writing a academic critique of fluoride and used the FAN as a source it would be ripped to bits. I know this isn't academia but at the very least i wish members who use sources that are clearly bias one way over another that they would at least acknowledge the confirmation bias at play.

In case you want to base your opinions soley on peer reviewed studies. Keep in mind that peer reviewed studies are often:

1. Conducted by authors with particular "motivations."

2. Funded by questionable parties. (conflict of interest)


That means that each article has to be scrutinized, you can't just post a PRS and expect that to cover your bases.

Also, what are the motivations for adding fluoride to the water? Money, convenience, lowering the masses IQ's?

What are the motivations against it?

if dental health is so important, it would be included as part of the national health system (for those of our countries who have those things.)

the idea of mass medicating an entire population for dental health is crazy.
it would make more sense to mass medicate for things like heart disease, or cholesterol or any myriad of actual issues.

in my opinion there is no way cavities is a good enough reason to mass medicate populations

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Let's be honest here; if the water was arsenic "enhanced" or lead "enhanced" there would be lawsuits. So why is okay to be fluoride enhanced?

Because at low levels fluoride is not toxic.
Because fluoride in drinking water does improve dental health.

The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.

jdr.sagepub.com...

Comparisons of communities where water is fluoridated and communities where water remains unfluoridated show a reduced prevalence of dental caries in the range of 18-40 % when fluoridation is used (4). A recent study established the rate of caries reduction at 25 % (23). It is postulated that this estimate is more conservative than those reported in the past because the general population now enjoys the benefits of fluoride from other sources,
such as fluoride-enriched toothpaste and vitamin supplements.

www.inspq.qc.ca...

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Also, what are the motivations for adding fluoride to the water? Money, convenience, lowering the masses IQ's?

Dental health is a public health issue. No one is getting rich selling fluoride.

What are the motivations against it?

Ignorance and fear.

Keep in mind the US is one of the last countries to continue this fluoridation process.

a reply to: okamitengu

in my opinion there is no way cavities is a good enough reason to mass medicate populations

Really. Poor oral hygiene can have devastating consequences and not everyone brushes and flosses after every meal.

I suppose you think chlorination is bad too? Chlorine is poison in high enough concentrations but it sure does a good job of killing bacteria in drinking water.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

1. Conducted by authors with particular "motivations."

That is entirely speculative on your part to assume that the authors of peer reviewed papers have "particular motivations" other than expanding knowledge. I am sure there are some bad apples out their but they have to be taken case by case.

2. Funded by questionable parties.

A good academic paper should always list "conflicts of interest". they are quite open about it and again what is a "questionable party" is open to interpretation.

Also, what are the motivations for adding fluoride to the water? Money, convenience, lowering the masses IQ's?

Or it could be just to improve dental health...

The plastic container worries me more than the fluoride.
Doesn't most municipal water already contain added fluoride (and chlorine). ?
From a marketing perspective, I would think that "pure spring water" should contain only the 'special' minerals inherent in it's source spring, otherwise it kind of negates the appeal of spring water.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: okamitengu

in my opinion there is no way cavities is a good enough reason to mass medicate populations

Really. Poor oral hygiene can have devastating consequences and not everyone brushes and flosses after every meal.

I suppose you think chlorination is bad too? Chlorine is poison in high enough concentrations but it sure does a good job of kill bacteria in drinking water.

C'mon, Phage. You don't need fluoride to maintain oral health. There are plenty of good fluoride free toothpastes. I avoid flouride and my oral health is great.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I believe it was Alcoa that was behind the whole "fluorides are good" campaign. It was a stroke of genius, actually. They went from "we have to pay to dispose of these toxic wastes" to "we get paid for this valuable by-product of metal refining."

The University of Cincinnati's Kettering Laboratory, funded largely by top fluoride emitters such as Alcoa, quickly dominated fluoride safety research. A book by Kettering scientist (and Reynolds Metals consultant) E.J. Largent was admittedly written in part to "aid industry in lawsuits arising from fluoride damage." Nonetheless, the book became a basic international reference work. In 1939, Alcoa-funded scientist Gerald J. Cox was one of the first to observe that the "present trend toward complete removal of fluoride from water and food may need some reversal." It was Cox who proposed that the "apparently worthless by-product" might reduce cavities in children. Cox fluoridated lab rats, concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and declared flatly: "The case should be regarded as proved."

In 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made, not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.

"The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water." - Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist

During the early 1980s, New Zealand's most prominent fluoridation advocate was John Colquhoun, the country's chief dental officer. He styled himself an "ardent fluoridationist" until he tried to gather statistics to bolster the claim that fluoride was a boon to dental health. "I observed that ... the percentage of children who were free of dental decay was higher in the unfluoridated part of most health districts in New Zealand," Colquhoun reported. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish his findings and he was encouraged to resign.

www.nofluoride.com...

a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Good for you.
But it does seem to help a good number of people.

Comparisons of communities where water is fluoridated and communities where water remains unfluoridated show a reduced prevalence of dental caries in the range of 18-40 % when fluoridation is used (4). A recent study established the rate of caries reduction at 25 % (23). It is postulated that this estimate is more conservative than those reported in the past because the general population now enjoys the benefits of fluoride from other sources,
such as fluoride-enriched toothpaste and vitamin supplements.

www.inspq.qc.ca...

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



It's actually a toxic bi-product of nuclear waste, so putting it in the water supply is a cheap way to save money. However, fluoride gets a pass because it's "supposedly" good for your teeth. It's actually not. It competes for absorbtion with iodine in your thyroid and is probably partially responsible for the hashimoto's epidemic.

My dentist says otherwise.



I have been using fluoride toothpaste for years



Now with all due respect I am going to side with my dentist who i have known for years rather than the guy on ATS telling me my toothpaste is going to kill me whose credentials i know nothing about.

IMO brushing your teeth with it and spitting it out after is a bit different than drinking it down all the time, if people brushed their teeth is it really neccesary?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

They went from "we have to pay to dispose of these toxic wastes" to "we get paid for this valuable by-product of metal refining."

One problem. It is not a by-product of metal refining. It is a raw material. They buy it, they don't sell it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Drinking fluoride to improve dental health is like drinking sunscreen to avoid a sunburn.