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.
Originally posted by rickymouse
Why should people be forced to have fluoride added to their water. People can get fluoride drops if they want. If they can't afford them than they could pick them up at the local health department. It would cost the government less than half as much to give drops to those who could not afford them than to pay for fluoridation costs around the country. What benefit is fluoride to those who have dentures? I think fluoridating water is unnecessary and the biggest waste of tax payer money in the country. Low level fluoride poisoning can cause many other diseases. It does not really poison people on their own. I knew someone who's nephew died from fluoride poisoning in the army. The government was testing fluoride on the soldiers in boot camp. He drank an excessive amount of water and died. He was not the only person who died from drinking too much fluoridated water.
Is there any way you could show some research suggesting or proving that ingesting fluoride is just as effective as using it topically?
I would like to know if there has ever been a study done with, say, 2 groups of people, one group uses fluoride toothpaste and drinks fluoridated water and the other group does not and find out what the results of their dental checkups would be after a year. Does anyone know if anything like that has ever been done or do the fluoride proponents base their findings off of towns that have fluoride in the water compared to dental health for those communities?
Results
214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.
Conclusions
The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.
The results of the Grand Rapids-Muskegon study after 10 years of observation indicate that the adjustment of the fluoride content of a communal water to an optimal level (approximately 1 p.p.m. fluoride) will produce the following effects:
1. A striking reduction in the prevalence of dental caries in the deciduous teeth. At the peak of prevalence, namely 6 years of age, the caries rate for the deciduous teeth was reduced by about 54 percent.
2. A marked reduction in the prevalenice of dental caries in the permanent teeth. In children born since fluoridation was put into effect, the caries rate for the permanent teeth was reduced on the average by about 60 percent.
The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does in fact reduce caries prevalence, both when measured by the proportion of children who are caries-free, and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score. However, to have real confidence in the ability to determine whether the fluoridation of drinking water reduces caries prevalence, the quality of evidence would need to be higher. The failure of these studies to deal with potential confounding factors or to provide standard error data means that the ability to definitively answer the question is limited. The studies were of moderate quality, but of limited quantity. Future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be conducted with methodology that can improve the quality of the evidence base.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by NavyDoc
The military certified it was fluoride poisoning. They even voluntarily financially settled with his mother without issue. People with hard water aren't nearly as apt to have problems with fluoride added to water as people with soft water. The calcium in hard water will bind to the fluoride and regulate the fluoride uptake. We have another problem though, some people adding the fluoride are going to the max allowed because they believe it can't hurt you. This is the same scenario that happened with DDT in the 60'sedit on 25-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)
I am left scratching my head at the folks that advocate or defend fluoridating water supplies. How could a substance that requires special handling because it is so corrosive, is a by-product of industry, and used in pesticides be a good idea to feed people?
Originally posted by Witness2008
I am left scratching my head at the folks that advocate or defend fluoridating water supplies. How could a substance that requires special handling because it is so corrosive, is a by-product of industry, and used in pesticides be a good idea to feed people?
I am left to believe that it is not a concern for good health, but rather a way to keep us subdued and manageable. Really, what's more important for the community, individual rights or dental health?
But we must keep in mind that fluoridated water, in contrast with fluoride tablets, its both systemic and topical fluoride treatment (it is both ingested and washes the teeth when drank),
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by NavyDoc
Don't know, it was because the fluoride shut down some organs or something, that's all I remember. The organ failure caused the toxins to build up in his body and he died. I guess that is what happens with fluoride poisoning.
People with certain liver and kidney disorders shouldn't take lasix because the fluoride in it can compromise the organs. I've read that on medical sites. I'm sure that this holds true for fluoridated water also, if either organ is weak it will cause a buildup of fluoride in the body. We should have a choice if we want to take medications, I'm sure a lot of people are effected by this long term low toxicity of fluoride.
Originally posted by Witness2008
I am left scratching my head at the folks that advocate or defend fluoridating water supplies. How could a substance that requires special handling because it is so corrosive, is a by-product of industry, and used in pesticides be a good idea to feed people?
I am left to believe that it is not a concern for good health, but rather a way to keep us subdued and manageable.