Were the conspiracy theorist right about Fluoride?

Gum disease as a result of too much fluoride? Can you show us a link to that, please.

Do I know folks that use baking soda and salt? Yep I do, in fact I have a tin of it myself. It can be beneficial if you have gum disease and the teeth are a lost cause. I have known about it for almost 50 years. My mom's dentist had her to use it, many years ago. Do you understand that folks can learn to NOT be influenced by commercials only?

Tap water does NOT have a detrimental amount of fluoride. Why should it be avoided?
 
If you say so...

http://drinkingwateradvisor.com/2012/04/06/skeletal-fluorosis-endemic-in-india/ <--- skeletal fluorosis is a massive problem in India.

<snippage>

Thanks for the info - as I said - if there's going to be soem effect from high fluoride levels then it is sure to be in areas that have er...high fluoride levels.

Right, but now you're admitting that fluoride consumption, even at 'high' but 'natural' levels, can lead to concentration of negative effects. Can't have it both ways.

What both ways?

I have always acknowledged that high levels of fluorine are bad, and also maintained that the levels that fluoride is added to water at - typically 1mg/l - is not harmful. I have also noted that in some places high natural levels are defluoridated to bring it down to that level - or need to be.

That is not "having it both ways" - it is acknowledging the facts which all of your links support - high fluoride bad, low fluoride not bad - but in every case "low" fluoride is NOT "no fluoride at all".
 
True-say. Minimal amounts, like those in drinking water, aren't necessarily a bad thing. It's none the less entirely needless from a dental perspective in a society where direct-contact products like toothpaste, and alternatively mouthwash and floss, are readily and cheaply available and actively encouraged as being highly beneficial. If it's entirely needless, why and by what right is it done?

Gum disease as a result of too much fluoride? Can you show us a link to that, please.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8070241
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10682330
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16438356

teef.png
dental fluorosis. Very prevalent in North America. Can be caused, as demonstrated earlier, by drinking water of 2ppm alone, without fluoridated toothpaste working in-tandem.
 
Your own posts show that that the rate is high even in areas without fluoridated water. That has be due to JUST misuse of toothpaste and mouthwash. The difference shows that around 15% could be attributed to fluoride in the water.

I would like to know what else is contributing to this. Is it parents/caretakers that allow an infant to sit with a bottle of water in their mouth? Or since more of these are in urban areas, is there a larger number of children that are not carefully watched while they are brushing?

Interesting but no smoking gun, for me
 
Indeed toothpaste and mouthwash alone can lead to fluorosis. The American gentlemen in his 50's who suffered skeletal fluorosis did so as a result of toothpaste alone. The refugee kids in the west-Saharan on the other hand were suffering fluorosis apparently as a result of fluoridated water alone, and that water was at only 2ppm. Now they were suffering from other health-risks that might have made them more susceptible, it's hard to say, but 2ppm isn't a lot, and well within the ranges of many North American communities.

I'm not saying I necessarily believe fluoride in the water is some grand conspiracy meant to stunt our brains, shrink our balls, and keep us nice and docile. I'd much sooner believe it was just a bad idea we jumped ahead with before we knew it was a bad idea, and that no-one wants to admit was a bad idea because we've been doing it for so very long on such a large scale. Cavities are bad, oral care is important, but so is our physical and mental integrity. If a short-term 'solution' to cavities has even the smallest potential to have a subtle but long-term negative effect on a persons teeth/bones/cognition, an effect which can be passed on too and compounded in their progeny, why and by what right is this 'solution' made a regional mandate requiring no consent? Wouldn't it be wise, given what's more or less an epidemic of fluorosis (some figures I've seen suggest 60% of American youth experience some level of dental fluorosis) to start discussing how we can better monitor/curb our intake of this substance, and perform more comprehensive studies of how much the average body absorbs from day to day/what effect that has?
 
Just to clarify, dental fluorosis is not a gum disease and your teeth are not in danger of fluorosis once they erupt into the oral cavity, although skeletal fluorosis can be a risk throughout your lifetime it requires much more severe exposure.

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/dental_fluorosis.htm#2

Dental fluorosis only occurs when younger children consume too much fluoride, from any source, over long periods when teeth are developing under the gums.

Using fluoride is a matter of risk and reward. The rewards are high but that comes with the responsibility of using it the way it was meant to. An analogy would be the usefulness of smart phones but the irresponsibility of people who text and drive. Or better yet, taking and finishing the recommended dosage for a prescription.

In the United States, water and processed beverages (e.g., soft drinks and fruit juices) can provide approximately 75% of a person's fluoride intake. Inadvertent swallowing of toothpaste and inappropriate use of other dental products containing fluoride can result in greater intake than desired. For this reason the CDC recommends parents supervise the use of fluoride toothpaste by children under the age of 6 to encourage them to spit out excess toothpaste. Also avoid the use of fluoride mouth rinses in children who are younger than 6 years old because the mouth rinse could be repeatedly swallowed.

For children aged 2 to 6 years, apply no more than a pea-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste to the brush and supervise their toothbrushing, encouraging the child to spit out the toothpaste rather than swallow it. Until about age 6, children have poor control of their swallowing reflex and frequently swallow most of the toothpaste placed on their brush.

Use an alternative source of water for children aged 8 years and younger if your primary drinking water contains greater than 2 mg/L of fluoride
In some regions of the United States, community water systems and private wells contain a natural fluoride concentration of more than 2 mg/L, and at this concentration, children 8 years and younger have a greater chance for developing dental fluorosis, including the moderate and severe forms.
 
Just to clarify, dental fluorosis is not a gum disease
true enough, but check this out http://www.offgridaustralia.com/system/files/documents/Fluoride%26Gum Disease.pdf
Using fluoride is a matter of risk and reward. The rewards are high but that comes with the responsibility of using it the way it was meant to. An analogy would be the usefulness of smart phones but the irresponsibility of people who text and drive. Or better yet, taking and finishing the recommended dosage for a prescription.
First off, are the rewards high? Back in the 40's and 50's when we started doing it they certainly were, but more modern studies don't yield nearly so encouraging results. Second, I find your comparisons highly interesting. You equate fluoride consumption to purchasing a smart phone, or, more accurately, a prescription medication.. suggesting proper use is a matter of personal responsibility. The thing is, you buy a smart phone, and choose to misuse it. In order to get prescription meds you have to consult a doctor, and be informed of the benefits and risks. Many people, perhaps the majority, have no idea what fluoride even is, let alone are aware it's in their water/daily hygiene products, and have no idea what amounts are safe and what's excessive / harmful. Thus, for many people, taking personal responsibility or making informed choices about their fluoride consumption is entirely impossible.
One of these things is not like the other ones.
 
Point to you on smart phones and scripts. But what about over the counter meds? There have numerous cases of accidental poisoning of both children and adults by acetaminophen.

It seems to me that we need to urge the production of non fluoridated toothpastes for young children.

We do have to consider that there are MANY children and adults in the US without any dental care (Include me among them). Some of them are also not brushing.
 
But what about over the counter meds? There have numerous cases of accidental poisoning of both children and adults by acetaminophen.
It's true, over the counter meds are open to abuse/misuse. Fluoridated toothpaste, so far as I'm concerned, is one such product.

It seems to me that we need to urge the production of non fluoridated toothpastes for young children.
Agreed entirely. I think we should limit, or avoid outright the exposure of infants/young children to fluoride in general. A product meant to fortify your teeth has no business in children who don't even have a set of teeth they're going to keep yet.

We do have to consider that there are MANY children and adults in the US without any dental care (Include me among them). Some of them are also not brushing.
Undoubtedly. When I mentioned earlier in the thread how I hadn't been the dentist in several years, that was due more than anything to my inability to afford dental care until that moment. Dentistry is hugely expensive, and if you don't have a dental plan with your employer you're in a fair bit of trouble no matter who you are. None the less, all the fluoride in the world isn't going to save your teeth if you don't engage in basic oral care. Do the highly impoverished benefit from fluoride in the water? Perhaps, but it's hardly certain. That said, why employ a 'global' pharmaceutical solution to a specific problem? If governments started putting Lithium in the water to combat bi-polar disorder, would you be alright with that? Or would you, not suffering from bi-polar disorder yourself (presumably), be wondering why in the hell you're being exposed to small doses of a pharmaceutical product on a daily basis for which you have no personal need, and which might be having a detrimental effect on you?
What's the difference between that and fluoridating water?
 
Many people, perhaps the majority, have no idea what fluoride even is, let alone are aware it's in their water/daily hygiene products, and have no idea what amounts are safe and what's excessive / harmful. Thus, for many people, taking personal responsibility or making informed choices about their fluoride consumption is entirely impossible.

I think you might be surprised- Typically municipalities vote on the issue- Its an issue that seems to attract a lot of attention.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/09/portland_votes_to_add_fluoride.html


http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/article_f2f05fdc-cf9b-11e1-817b-0019bb2963f4.html
 
You're not wrong, the issue has come up rather recently in my own region, leading to a vote of the city council. There are very active and increasingly vocal anti-fluoridation movements in many North American communities. Mick suggested some might be associated with socialist politics/political groups, and though I'm not sure about that it didn't seem like something to argue. Still, most people I know weren't paying a mote of attention to it when it happened, and many of those who did follow it had no idea it was even an issue until it was brought up in the newspapers. The vote didn't pass, and we continue to fluoridate our water, I think in slightly greater amounts now than we did then. I'm exceedingly confident that if I wandered the streets tonight asking folks what they thought about fluoride (with a microphone and a camera-man so as not to weird them out) a fair, if not majority-percentage of the answers would be 'what's that?'
 
true enough, but check this out http://www.offgridaustralia.com/system/files/documents/Fluoride%2526Gum%20Disease.pdf

First off, are the rewards high? Back in the 40's and 50's when we started doing it they certainly were, but more modern studies don't yield nearly so encouraging results. Second, I find your comparisons highly interesting. You equate fluoride consumption to purchasing a smart phone, or, more accurately, a prescription medication.. suggesting proper use is a matter of personal responsibility. The thing is, you buy a smart phone, and choose to misuse it. In order to get prescription meds you have to consult a doctor, and be informed of the benefits and risks. Many people, perhaps the majority, have no idea what fluoride even is, let alone are aware it's in their water/daily hygiene products, and have no idea what amounts are safe and what's excessive / harmful. Thus, for many people, taking personal responsibility or making informed choices about their fluoride consumption is entirely impossible.
One of these things is not like the other ones.

It's just an analogy. Yes, the rewards are very high. Dental health is much better now that we use fluoride toothpaste and the average lifespan has increased because of it. Fluoride is extremely effective when compared to other antiseptics, too. Fluoride has to be within the correct dosage range to be effective, which is pretty broad. Why would you think the risks outweigh the rewards? Making informed choices is entirely possible. People are misinformed about plenty of things, thats where conspiracy theories come from and its also a fact of human nature. Not everyone is curious enough to look into this kind of stuff. It's easy to inform yourself though, all of the guidelines I just posted were pulled very quickly from the CDC and dentists as well as hygienists are just as available as doctors to talk to. Also like you mentioned earlier, there are directions and warnings on the back of toothpaste tubes.

http://www.whiteman.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123136371
Because of the widespread availability of various sources of fluoride, decay rates in the U.S. have greatly diminished. Currently the water supply on Whiteman is appropriately fluoridated, so there is no need for additional dietary supplementation. People living in communities outside of Whiteman should check with their dentist or local health department to see if the community water is fluoridated.

In May 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General's office revealed that tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease. Because of this, millions of school hours are lost each year to dental-related diseases. This can be prevented with proper oral hygiene and regular dental visits to maintain good oral health.

I mean, if you're that concerned about kids swallowing toothpaste then you can buy fluoride free toothpaste for them.
[h=1]TODDLER TRAINING TOOTHPASTE[/h]
[h=2]The #1 Brand of Toothpaste for Toddlers*[/h]Orajel® Toddler Training Toothpastes are gentle and nonabrasive made just for toddlers. They are the only toothpastes with a special ingredient that cleans toddlers’ teeth and gums. Your kids will love the fun flavors, and you’ll like knowing it’s fluoride-free, so it’s safe if swallowed when used as directed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's just an analogy. Yes, the rewards are very high. Dental health is much better now that we use fluoride toothpaste and the average lifespan has increased because of it.
Because of the widespread availability of various sources of fluoride, decay rates in the U.S. have greatly diminished... ...In May 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General's office revealed that tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/ take a read through that. Do you really think the steady improvements in oral health over the last century in most all developed countries, fluoridated or no, is the result of fluoridated water..? The assertions of one dentist or a thousand dentists has little bearing on the findings and assertions of professionals in other fields of medicine.
 
Do you really think the steady improvements in oral health over the last century in most all developed countries, fluoridated or no, is the result of fluoridated water..?

No, I never said that. I was talking about toothpaste and general fluoride use in dental care. You incorrectly attributed these products to fluorosis and other risk factors so I thought I would talk about that. Fluoridated water, as I stated in my first post in this thread, can be argued as excessive but doubtably puts you at serious risk for health complications. The ppm dosage is relatively small. The risks involved with fluoride mostly go away with childhood.

Intended goal of fluoridation: Delivery of 1 milligram of fluoride per day

1 milligram/liter = 1ppm (parts per million)**mcg/100g = ppm * 100 (beverages corrected for specific gravity)
Food GroupItem
Mean mcg/100g **
Beverages:
Alcoholic beverage, beer, light
45​
Alcoholic beverage, beer, regular
44​
Alcoholic beverage, distilled, all (gin, rum, vodka, whiskey), 80 proof
9​
Alcoholic beverage, wine, red
105​
Alcoholic beverage, wine, white
202​
Carbonated, cola, diet, fast food type, without ice
78​
Carbonated, cola, fast food type, without ice
65​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI, all regions
32​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI, Mid-West
36​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI, Northeast
27​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI, South
45​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI, West
13​
Carbonated, cola, COCA-COLA, all regions
49​
Carbonated, cola, COCA-COLA, Mid-West
46​
Carbonated, cola, COCA-COLA, Northeast
53​
Carbonated, cola, COCA-COLA, South
57​
Carbonated, cola, COCA-COLA, West
36​
Carbonated, cola, DIET PEPSI, all regions
48​
Carbonated, cola, DIET PEPSI, Mid-West
46​
Carbonated, cola, DIET PEPSI, Northeast
46​
Carbonated, cola, DIET PEPSI, South
66​
Carbonated, cola, DIET PEPSI, West
25​
Carbonated, cola, DIET COKE, all regions
60​
Carbonated, cola, DIET COKE, Mid-West
69​
Carbonated, cola, DIET COKE, Northeast
58​
Carbonated, cola, DIET COKE, South
72​
Carbonated, cola, DIET COKE, West
33​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI ONE, all regions
40​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI ONE, Mid-West
47​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI ONE, Northeast
31​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI ONE, South
56​
Carbonated, cola, PEPSI ONE, West
18​
Carbonated, ginger ale
80​
Carbonated, grape soda
93​
Carbonated, lemon-lime, fast food type, without ice
64​
Carbonated, lemon-lime, SPRITE, all regions
48​
Carbonated, lemon-lime, SPRITE, Mid-West
47​
Carbonated, lemon-lime, SPRITE, Northeast
48​
Carbonated, lemon-lime, SPRITE, South
59​
Carbonated, lemon-lime, SPRITE, West
29​
Carbonated, orange soda
84​
Carbonated, root beer
83​
Carbonated, water, fruit-flavored
105​
Chocolate-flavor beverage, mix for milk, powder
5​
Coffee, brewed
91​
Cranberry juice cocktail and blends, light, ready-to-drink
70​
Fruit drink, CAPRI-SUN, ready-to-drink
71​
Fruit drink, HAWAIIAN PUNCH, ready-to-drink
44​
Fruit drink, HI-C, ready-to-drink
22​
Fruit drink, MINUTE MAID punch, ready-to-drink
17​
Fruit drink, other brands, ready-to-drink
54​
Fruit flavored drinks, prepared from powder
42​
Fruit flavored drinks, KOOL-AID, ready-to-drink
43​
Fruit flavored drink, SUNNY DELIGHT, ready-to-drink
68​
Fruit juice drink, apple, ready-to-drink
104​
Fruit juice drink, blends (not cranberry), ready-to-drink
49​
Fruit juice drink, FIVE ALIVE, ready-to-drink
8​
Fruit juice drink, grape, ready-to-drink
32​
Fruit juice drink, orange, ready-to-drink
55​
Lemonade, ready to drink
25​
Tea, brewed, microwave, all
322​
Tea, brewed, microwave, Mid-West
319​
Tea, brewed, microwave, Northeast
309​
Tea, brewed, microwave, South
322​
Tea, brewed, microwave, West
310​
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, all
269​
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, Mid-West
293​
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, Northeast
279​
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, South
264​
Tea, brewed, decaffeinated, West
247​
Tea, brewed, regular, all
373​
Tea, brewed, regular, Mid-West
393​
Tea, brewed, regular, Northeast
357​
Tea, brewed, regular, South
381​
Tea, brewed, regular, West
355​
Tea, iced, ARIZONA, ready-to-drink
123​
Tea, iced, COOL NESTEA Natural Lemon, ready-to-drink
90​
Tea, iced, LIPTON BRISK Lemon, ready-to-drink
72​
Tea, instant, powder, unsweetened
89772​
Tea, instant, powder, unsweetened, prepared with tap water
335​
Tea, instant, powder, with lemon and sugar
584​
Tea, instant, powder, with lemon and sugar, prepared with tap water
116​
Thirst quencher (sport drink), GATORADE, ready-to-drink
34​
Thirst quencher (sport drink), POWERADE, ready-to-drink
62​
Water, bottled, AQUAFINA
5​
Water, bottled, CALISTOGA
7​
Water, bottled, CRYSTAL GEYSER
24​
Water, bottled, DANNON
11​
Water, bottled, DANNON FLUORIDE TO GO
78​
Water, bottled, DASANI
7​
Water, bottled, EVIAN
10​
Water, bottled, NAYA
14​
Water, bottled, PERRIER
31​
Water, bottled, POLAND SPRINGS
10​
Water, bottled, PROPEL FITNESS WATER
2​
Water, bottled, SARATOGA
20​
Water, bottled, VERYFINE FRUIT2O Water
6​
Water, bottled, VOLVIC
34​
Water, bottled, store brand
16​
Water, frozen (ice)
11​
Waters, tap, all regions, all (includes municipal and well)
71​
Waters, tap, all regions, municipal $
81​
Waters, tap, all regions, well
26​
Waters, tap, Mid-West, all (includes municipal and well)
88​
Waters, tap, Mid-West, municipal
99​
Waters, tap, Mid-West, well
53​
Waters, tap, Northeast, all (includes municipal and well)
69​
Waters, tap, Northeast, municipal
74​
Waters, tap, Northeast, well
9​
Waters, tap, South, all (includes municipal and well)
76​
Waters, tap, South, municipal
93​
Waters, tap, South, well
10​
Waters, tap, West, all (includes municipal and well)
47​
Waters, tap, West, municipal
51​
Waters, tap, West, well
24​
Breakfast cereals:
 
No, I never said that. I was talking about toothpaste and general fluoride use in dental care. You incorrectly attributed these products to fluorosis and other risk factors so I thought I would talk about that..
So it had nothing to do with, say, the vast improvements in general quality of life over that same period...? And how is my attribution 'incorrect'? Toothpaste can cause fluorosis, dental and skeletal, even in North America. It's been demonstrated right here in this thread.
The risks involved with fluoride mostly go away with childhood.
Hasn't it also been demonstrated in this thread that isn't the case? The risks of dental fluorosis mostly go away at childhood. The risks of skeletal fluorosis persist throughout life, and the symptoms of mild to moderate skeletal fluorosis (joint pain, stiffness, hunching, ect.) are all easily mistaken as 'getting old'. Manypeople could be suffering bone related maladies directly linked to a lifetime of fluoride consumption, and their diagnosis could only make that link if there was a specialist on hand who knew the symptoms and knew to perform a urinary test for F content. It's been documented that ending fluoride consumption can lead to gradual improvement in those suffering from skeletal fluorosis.
Tea, instant, powder, unsweetened
89772
Scary stuff. I wondered and worried that 'tea' kept coming up while researching fluorosis, given I'm a fan, but I've never touched the instant stuff, and am now damn relieved for it.
I notice you didn't address my comparison of dumping fluoride into the water to try and reduce dental carries to dumping lithium in the water to try and reduce the impact of bi-polar disorder. Do you understand why the latter is unethical? Can you understand why the fluoride policy consists of precisely the same sort of breach of ethics? Again, even though I think fluoridated toothpaste is a potentially dangerous product, my beef isn't with it. You've got to buy the stuff, and in doing so you have a chance to read the label.
 
There is a HUGE difference, not everyone has or will become bi polar, BUT anyone that has teeth can get caries.

I would also like to point out, that during this time that caries have went down, the consumption of sodas and other sugary items went up.
 
BUT anyone that has teeth can get caries.
And anyone with a mind can lose it. Fluoride doesn't reverse dental carries, it's a preventative measure. Where fluoridated water is concerned, it's a preventative measure that many, if not a majority of North Americans have absolutely no need of, given contact-use fluoride products are readily available to them from multiple sources and in high concentrations. Obliging people to engage in a preventative pharmaceutical treatment to which they have not consented, whether it's of any value to them or not, is unethical, both from a moral but more importantly a legal standpoint. It violates some very basic fundamentals surrounding ethical medical treatment and medical experimentation. Everyone's at risk of constipation, should laxative be dumped into the water supply? Everyone's at risk of developing a cold/flu in the winter, so should cough-syrup/flu vaccine become a part of our daily intake? Everyone's at risk of getting old and tired, so should we include 1 ppm Human Growth Hormone in our water to ensure everybody keeps their pep as they age?
It's treatment without consent, no matter how you look at it.
 
According to the CDC Fluoride can reverse tooth decay.
" How does fluoride work to prevent tooth decay?

Fluoride works by stopping or even reversing the tooth decay process. It keeps tooth enamel strong and solid. Tooth decay is caused by certain bacteria in the mouth. When a person eats sugar and other refined carbohydrates, these bacteria produce acid that removes minerals from the surface of the tooth. Fluoride helps to remineralize tooth surfaces and prevents cavities from "

 
"Obliging people to engage in a preventative pharmaceutical treatment to which they have not consented, whether it's of any value to them or not, is unethical, both from a moral but more importantly a legal standpoint"

I think most people would think the question whether it is unethical is directly linked to the value of the treatment. Most parents oblige kids to take medicine that the kids have not consented to.
 
prevents cavities
cavities = carries. So fluoride is preventative. 'Reversing the tooth decay process' doesn't mean it's going to fill in a cavity you already have.
I think most people would think the question whether it is unethical is directly linked to the value of the treatment. Most parents oblige kids to take medicine that the kids have not consented to.
Are you suggesting the legal relationship between state and citizen is equivalent to the relationship between parent and child...?

You'd also be wrong on that point from a legal standpoint... for the same reason that a Jehova's Witness is within their rights to refuse blood-donations or medications if they're cognitively capable of making that decision on the basis of their belief system alone, even if that blood/medication is going to save their lives. Citizens have the right, or are supposed to have the right to refuse treatment. Again, that's pretty fundamental stuff in ethical medicine.
 
"That's a very interesting position to take."

lol. Especially since I have been on the other side of this argument twice in court for refusal of treatment.
 
The risks of dental fluorosis from drinking water end when childhood ends, but so does the benefit of continuing to treat. Only actively growing teeth will incorporate fluoride from the bloodstream into the tooth.

Topical fluoride (toothpaste, mouthwash, and dentist-office treatments) can be of value at any age, because the fluoride stabilizes the surface of the enamel.
 
Toothpaste can cause fluorosis, dental and skeletal, even in North America. It's been demonstrated right here in this thread.
The risks of dental fluorosis mostly go away at childhood. The risks of skeletal fluorosis persist throughout life

I've already said those things. Skeletal fluorosis requires much more sever exposure, though. Fluoridated water or toothpaste use will not give you skeletal fluorosis.

http://www.slweb.org/CEN.skeletal-fluorosis.html

In the early clinical stage of skeletal fluorosis, symptoms include pains in the bones and joints; sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs; muscle weakness; chronic fatigue; and gastrointestinal disorders and reduced appetite. During this phase, changes in the pelvis and spinal column can be detected on x-rays. The bone has both a more prominent and more blurred structure.
In the second clinical stage, pains in the bones become constant and some of the ligaments begin to calcify. Osteoporosis may occur in the long bones, and early symptoms of osteosclerosis (a condition in which the bones become more dense and have abnormal crystalline structure) are present. Bony spurs may also appear on the limb bones, especially around the knee, the elbow, and on the surface of tibia and ulna.
In advanced skeletal fluorosis, called crippling skeletal fluorosis, the extremities become weak and moving the joints is difficult. The vertebrae partially fuse together, crippling the patient.
Most experts in skeletal fluorosis agree that ingestion of 20 mg of fluoride a day for 20 years or more can cause crippling skeletal fluorosis. Doses as low as 2 to 5 mg per day can cause the preclinical and earlier clinical stages.
The situation is complicated because the risk of skeletal fluorosis depends on more than the level of fluoride in the water. It also depends on nutritional status, intake of vitamin D and protein, absolute amount of calcium and ratio of calcium to magnesium in drinking water, and other factors.

So it had nothing to do with, say, the vast improvements in general quality of life over that same period...?

I explained that dental health is extremely important to overall health and lifespan. It's a trend across the animal kingdom as well. As I've said, fluoridated water can be argued as excessive. It does, however, have benefits and the ppm dosage is unlikely to contribute significantly to skeletal fluorosis, which requires a much higher dose, especially when other common sources have higher or equal concentrations of fluoride.
 
Everyone's at risk of constipation, should laxative be dumped into the water supply? Everyone's at risk of developing a cold/flu in the winter, so should cough-syrup/flu vaccine become a part of our daily intake? Everyone's at risk of getting old and tired, so should we include 1 ppm Human Growth Hormone in our water to ensure everybody keeps their pep as they age?

So would the incorporation of vitamin A in rice via genetic engineering in order to prevent blindness in certain areas also be unethical? Consider the risks of fluoridated water. It helps infants, not adults. Does it cause significant harm in adults? The numbers don't suggest so. Is it necessary for children? Probably not necessary, but its benefits are known and risks minuscule with such a small dose. I honestly don't see a big deal either way.
 
And anyone with a mind can lose it..

If there was a pretty good remedy/preventative treatment for it that had no significant side effects then I'd at least look at the argument it mass-medicate with that.

There are other forms of mass medication - iodine in salt, some places have at least considerd folic acid in bread IIRC.

Mass medication is not automatically unethical or evil.
 
If there was a pretty good remedy/preventative treatment for it that had no significant side effects then I'd at least look at the argument it mass-medicate with that.

Well the line is crossed (for me anyway) when it comes to the mind altering mass medication. It's to scary of a slope to go down.

(On the other hand LSD in the water supply could lead to an interesting world indeed.)
 
But fluoride is NOT mind altering. All the discussion has been over other effects.

I thought Mikec was suggesting he'd be ok with mass medication to prevent mental illness. Maybe I just misread.

My position is that mass-medicating
for physical health in some cases I could I agree with (like fluoride) when it comes to mass-medicating for mental health that's a whole other ballgame. and that is what most conspiracy theorist believe fluoride to be. I way of dumbing us down. that is why they frequently use the term "fluoride head' when describing the people who don't agree with them.
 
Medicating someone without their consent, especially in an experimental fashion is, by legal definition, an unethical practice. When the state takes it upon itself to cross those lines, things can go very wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_ultra

Fluoridated water or toothpaste use will not give you skeletal fluorosis.
Once again, and hopefully for the last time, I've already cited a North American case of skeletal fluorosis caused by toothpaste alone, which was thoroughly tested, and progressively treated, over a period of 10 years.

In the second clinical stage, pains in the bones become constant and some of the ligaments begin to calcify. Osteoporosis may occur in the long bones, and early symptoms of osteosclerosis (a condition in which the bones become more dense and have abnormal crystalline structure) are present. Bony spurs may also appear on the limb bones, especially around the knee, the elbow, and on the surface of tibia and ulna.
There happens to be what could easily be described as an epidemic of both these conditions in North America right now.

But fluoride is NOT mind altering. All the discussion has been over other effects.
There's been mention throughout this thread of Fluoride consumptions potential effects on cognition. Here's some more.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12460657
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12504354
and, perhaps most easily understood/significant, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23119131
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17450237
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22865964
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562 <--
In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.
There's a lot more.
 
What bugs me the most about this issue is probably its treatment. That it's here in this section of your forum only makes evident what a spectacular job has been done of turning a legitimate health concern of many medical professionals into the ramblings of fringe wackos.
Fluoride isn't a 'conspiracy theory', it's a substance, with well documented pharmaceutical properties and toxic effects. The 'conspiracy theories' around fluoride are about the motivation behind doing it, and have no bearing on the facts of the substance itself.
 
Why can some not understand the difference between "Effect of high water fluoride concentration" (that is what is referenced above) and the low levels used in drinking water? We need salt in our diet, but too much salt is harmful. In fact even drinking too much water can be deadly.
 
Back
Top