An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary

reply to post by Raelsatu

Even if it were proven that fluoride doesn't pose a number of health and mental risk, which is NOT the case, people should still know and be able to choose what goes into their bodies on a regular basis.

Hard to do. You'll need to include the air you breathe in that category.

I'd rather brush & floss with more care -- and watch what I drink/eat -- than rely on fluoridated water.

That's fine for you. Then you don't believe that public health is a community concern?

Hypothetical question, since you are concerned about the health effects of fluoride. What should be done in areas with significant natural levels of fluoride in the water supply? Should everyone bear the cost of removing it so you don't have to drink it?

reply to post by Egyptia

What is considered to be low doses passed legally does not exclude the damage implicated in our bodies over time. It is cumulative in its affects.

What cumulative effects? You mean age? Yes, that does have cumulative effects but it's hard to blame any of them on fluoride being added to water.

Everything that my studies have revealed tell a very different story.

Everything? It doesn't sound like you're taking a balanced look. Have you asked your dentist?

reply to post by Phage


It's sensationalistic for a good reason. We're talking about the most basic yet essential resource for human survival, as well as life in general, being infused with a chemical that may or may not affect people for the worse. So the argument is boiled down to: ingesting a toxic chemical in trace amounts on a daily basis is fine because it may help people who have poor oral hygiene?? That's ridiculous. If the chemical alone aids oral health, you'd have to wonder how could it not affect the body in other ways.

I do agree that it should be up local communities to decide, if anything. [Nearly] every citizen should be informed on the matter, and given a say in whether or not they would like their water supply spiked. And even then, there needs to be EXTENSIVE, exceptional research done into the physiological/psychological effects both short term and long term.

This worries me only because I drink tap water 95% of the time.
Except at work (reverse osmosis) or the occasional bottle.

However, I haven't seen a dentist in 13 years and have no cavities... so I'm worried if I stop drinking tap, that I'll have to see the dentist...

I just checked my own citys' water treatment page. It says our flouride levels are at 0.83 mg/l.

It also says to be on the lookout for "unlicensed salesman going door-to-door selling reverse osmosis water filtration systems".Ha.
It then goes on to say that if you reverse osmosis your water, you will lose valueable minerals that you can get from tap water.. oh my...right..

reply to post by Raelsatu

It's sensationalistic for a good reason.

What about the blatant falsehoods (like the nazi claim)?

So the argument is boiled down to: ingesting a toxic chemical in trace amounts on a daily basis is fine because it may help people who have poor oral hygiene??

Ingesting a chemical which is not toxic at the concentrations used decreases tooth decay in everyone, more so in those with poor oral hygiene.

Twenty studies were included in the final body of evidence. Among studies published after/during 1980, any fluoride (self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation) annually averted 0.29 (95%CI: 0.16–0.42) carious coronal and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.08–0.37) carious root surfaces. 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...

If the chemical alone aids oral health, you'd have to wonder how could it not affect the body in other ways.

Sure. And if you learn about the mechanism of how it does that and read the studies which show that it really doesn't affect heatlh (other than preventing tooth decay) at those low concentrations and if you notice that all those terrible things don't seem to be happening in spite of the decades of fluoridation you might not be as concerned as if you only listen to the anti-fluoridation crowd.

I do agree that it should be up local communities to decide, if anything. [Nearly] every citizen should be informed on the matter, and given a say in whether or not they would like their water supply spiked.

Why "nearly"? But I agree. What I disagree with is the distortion and myth. That does not lead to being well informed.

reply to post by Phage


reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Two of the most silly remarks about being safe with yourself right?

What on earth are people like you two doing in a critical thinking forums..when all you do is to strengthen your comfort bubbles..its sad really! you make me wanne tear up and fold up and cry....cause minds like you exist, and minds like that coexist with so much greater minds...are the reason the earth is on a stand still.

Stupid people breed more stupid people, ever thought about that? its this you are doing right now.

I feel sorry for your kids...and your future kids.

oO

reply to post by AldrinAlden

Really?
I though critical thinking meant (among other things) looking at as many sides of an issue as possible, not just accepting the claims of one side without evidence. You don't think I should ask for sources for those claims?

You just think they're true? Is that what you call critical thinking?

reply to post by Phage


You are just accepting the claims of your own GOV LINKS and "Sources" ...

Like i said stupid people breed more stupid people.

Good luck with that.

reply to post by AldrinAlden

I don't use many "government links" but I have read quite a few research papers.
Have you? Or do you just call people names when they disagree with you?

reply to post by Phage


"but I have read quite a few research papers."

And still ! you are like this?

oO

What is 75% flouride ? prozac check out a tablet picture guess what is written in the tablet ? flouri short for flouride! Makes a good mind wonder , does'nt it!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Raelsatu
Hard to do. You'll need to include the air you breathe in that category.

For comparison, let's say the governments began a mass-scale chemical spraying of the atmosphere.
So as people began to inquire about "chemical X", the government replied that spraying this chemical would prevent people from balding. Ok, so the extra chemical placed in our air helps keep our hair from falling out; but people begin to realize that chemical X also causes an increased risk of acquiring/inducing neurodegenerative diseases, lethargy, chronic fatigue & depression. It becomes a controversy; one side saying there's no solid proof that chemical X causes health risk, and that it's worth it so that people can have a full head of hair for longer. The other side begs to differ, and pleads that they should not be subjected to breathing in these synthetic chemicals just because it will help retain a hairy scalp.

Then you don't believe that public health is a community concern?

I do believe public health is a concern, which is why I'm concerned that many millions of people are unknowingly ingesting a chemical like this on a daily basis. As if plain natural water is not healthy enough? It would be different if every citizen were given the option to vote whether or not their water supply was fluoridated; over intervals of every 1 - 5 years the vote were renewed, with research and extensive studies published to determine without doubt whether people could feel safe regularly ingesting it.

Hypothetical question, since you are concerned about the health effects of fluoride. What should be done in areas with significant natural levels of fluoride in the water supply? Should everyone bear the cost of removing it so you don't have to drink it?

Should everyone bear the cost of adding fluoride to water supplies, not to mention on a mass scale? See in this case it's not a hypothetical. But to answer your hypothetical, that depends. If the fluoride levels in a particular area are high enough, without debate, to pose serious health risk; then yes. Either the water should be de-fluoridated, or the people should find a different source of water. If the water has only trace amounts, the sort that city folk are drinking regularly, then they should be allowed to choose whether to drink it or not. Actually, people should be allowed to choose to drink whatever they like, so long as there's consent &/or foreknowledge. How would you react if you were sitting at a restaurant, got up to go use the restroom, and while you're absent a waiter dumps a vial of a chemical into your drink?

See I'm not implying that we go on some de-fluoridation crusade. Simpy saying that people should be informed on the matter, be able to choose whether or not their water supply is spiked with a chemical additive; and that extensive research should be done with complete transparency & validation.

Phage tries to mislead readers with his concentration vs. dose argument.

Phage denies that fluoride is cumulative, when it is.

Phage denies that fluoride is a neurotoxin, when it is.

It is about time people wake up....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Raelsatu

 

It's sensationalistic for a good reason.

What about the blatant falsehoods (like the nazi claim)?

Nazi claim? I haven't heard of it, but I'll check it out.

Ingesting a chemical which is not toxic at the concentrations used decreases tooth decay in everyone, more so in those with poor oral hygiene.

Twenty studies were included in the final body of evidence. Among studies published after/during 1980, any fluoride (self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation) annually averted 0.29 (95%CI: 0.16–0.42) carious coronal and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.08–0.37) carious root surfaces. 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...

So the findings suggest a decrease in the decay of caries; but what about the effects on the rest of the human body? Just because a few studies were done to show a particular chemical may be of benefit to oral health, doesn't automatically make it the rational choice to begin spiking every water supply. There have been some horrendous ancient & modern examples of societies embracing certain drugs/chemicals thought to be safe, that later turned out to be dangerous & degenerative. What's even more bizarre is that in this case most people don't know about fluoride in their water, or don't have much of a say in the matter unless a significant amount rally against it.

Sure. And if you learn about the mechanism of how it does that and read the studies which show that it really doesn't affect heatlh (other than preventing tooth decay) at those low concentrations and if you notice that all those terrible things don't seem to be happening in spite of the decades of fluoridation you might not be as concerned as if you only listen to the anti-fluoridation crowd.

I'll admit I haven't done much research into fluoride & its effects, nearly as much as you or some other people. However, were there any extensive studies done prior to the mass fluoridation? No, the masses were guinea pigs even before these "studies" existed. We still are guinea pigs on many fronts. As for the decades of fluoridation not affecting people, well that's up for debate.

reply to post by Phage

Everything? It doesn't sound like you're taking a balanced look. Have you asked your dentist?

I'm sorry Phage but why in the world would I ask my dentist who is blindly promoting such a toxin? I have instead asked PhD chemists, biologists and various other specialists who work in chemistry, medicine and biology.

Originally posted by Phage
Everything? It doesn't sound like you're taking a balanced look. Have you asked your dentist?

Right, like when you ask your dentist if amalgam fillings are perfectly safe & they reply yes. Mercury is extremely toxic even in trace amounts, is known to cause a number of physical and mental ailments; many countries have banned the use of mercury [compounds] in dental fillings. Yet still legal in the USA..... Makes a lot of sense. Who knows, there may be a similar conclusion to water fluoridation in the near future? At which point multiple generations will have already been damaged. It's funny how these things explode and then implode almost instantaneously, causing widespread harm before vanishing.

reply to post by Raelsatu

For comparison, let's say the governments began a mass-scale chemical spraying of the atmosphere.

I was talking about pollution. See, the thing is you don't have to drink tap water but you do have to breathe air.

but people begin to realize that chemical X also causes an increased risk of acquiring/inducing neurodegenerative diseases, lethargy, chronic fatigue & depression

How do they "realize" that?

The other side begs to differ, and pleads that they should not be subjected to breathing in these synthetic chemicals just because it will help retain a hairy scalp.

Balding is not exactly a public health issue but if the community chooses to do it I don't think it would work because they wouldn't just be affecting their own community.

It would be different if every citizen were given the option to vote whether or not their water supply was fluoridated; over intervals of every 1 - 5 years the vote were renewed, with research and extensive studies published to determine without doubt whether people could feel safe regularly ingesting it.

Well that would depend upon the way your local government operates. In a lot of places the decision is based on referendum. In some places people choose to discontinue fluoridation. In others people vote to continue it. In others people vote to start it.

If the water has only trace amounts, the sort that city folk are drinking regularly, then they should be allowed to choose whether to drink it or not. Actually, people should be allowed to choose to drink whatever they like, so long as there's consent &/or foreknowledge. How would you react if you were sitting at a restaurant, got up to go use the restroom, and while you're absent a waiter dumps a vial of a chemical into your drink?

Are you now claiming that fluoride is being clandestinely slipped into the water supply?

See I'm not implying that we go on some de-fluoridation crusade. Simpy saying that people should be informed on the matter, be able to choose whether or not their water supply is spiked with a chemical additive; and that extensive research should be done with complete transparency & validation

Nor am I on a fluoridation campaign. I'm saying that sensationalism and distortion has no place in informing the public. It turns out that in a lot of places people decide that they want to have their water "spiked". Do you just assume that they are not well informed? Don't you think that they may just not buy the hyperbole?

The biggest aspect that stands out to me personally.

Why is only one specific chemical added to the water to treat (allegedly) a health issue, when there are so many other health issues with chemical counterparts?? For example most people in the USA lack certain Omega Fatty Acids, so why are they not added to the water? I am sure we could come up with nearly countless examples for any given community. So why just fluoride and why just teeth health?? Seems to be the answer is because it's not really about people's health.

Also curious to me. Fluoride is effective (allegedly) when applied topically to teeth hence it being added to toothpaste... so how exactly does that translate to it being effective via consumption

reply to post by Raelsatu

So the findings suggest a decrease in the decay of caries; but what about the effects on the rest of the human body?

I was replying to your statement that only people with poor dental hygiene benefit. What effects? Where are those effects documented?

There have been some horrendous ancient & modern examples of societies embracing certain drugs/chemicals thought to be safe, that later turned out to be dangerous & degenerative. What's even more bizarre is that in this case most people don't know about fluoride in their water, or don't have much of a say in the matter unless a significant amount rally against it.

Really? Do a search for "fluoride vote", you'll find otherwise.

However, were there any extensive studies done prior to the mass fluoridation? No, the masses were guinea pigs even before these "studies" existed.

Actually, there were, sort of. Artificial fluoridation became interesting to dentists because it was found that those who consumed naturally fluoridated water had fewer caries than others. Sort of a natural lab. Those people weren't really suffering any dreadful effects but their teeth had less decay (even though they were a bit stained by fluorosis).