NEWSWEEK: Fluoridation may not prevent cavities, scientific

Post Reply New Topic

The actual research paper is online ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract ).

But wait...we aren't supposed to ban certain ingredients in food that do a whole lot more damage than flouride in the drinking water but suddenly the genie has been let out of the toothpaste tube so quick, catch him and shove him back in! It's our freedom. We are free to put the trans fats and processed sugars, flours in the food, the flouride in the drinking water! Why is it The Right want to pounce on this water flouridation issue but they throw hissies over banning coca cola? There is such a thing as buying your own drinking drinking water best check it isn't flouridated first though. Do the homework!

The irony is astounding!

Maybe what they need to do is plug everyone into the local coca cola plant and skip water altogether? Just let coca cola flow from the faucets!! !

One of the things left out of the research paper was the compound effect fluoridated water has with food products. All those dehydrated boxed foods were once full of fluoridated water from the communities where they were processed. Drying out the food doesn't remove the fluoride. Those potato and corn chips have dried fluoride in them. Those box cakes do, too. The water in that six-pack of root beer has fluoride as well. Loaves of bread, pies, tortillas, canned vegetables, soups, stews, ice cream ... pretty much everything that was ever processed with fluoridated water includes fluoride (and multiple amounts).

So, like fluoridating drinking water, the question about fluoridated food becomes one of dosing. A 40-lbs. child runs around his backyard all day long in August and might drink a gallon or more of water, but his 185-lbs. father works in an air-conditioned office and drinks, maybe, two cups of coffee a day? The fluoridated food that each eats might come closer to balancing out. But, with the compound effect of multiple amounts of fluoride in food AND water is far beyond what the U.S. government allows for consumption by any standard of measure. And, therein lies the danger.

Now, comes this research survey which shows that fluoridated water does NOT prove fewer dental caries. So, why do we continue to include it? Well, more and more, we don't include it. Communities throughout the United States have chosen to stop wasting tax-payer money to do something which doesn't protect against dental problems, and, in fact, causes the dramatic increase in dental fluorosis injuries, and various other health problems. The U.S. government has twice reduced the allowable amount of fluoride in drinking water in the last few years because of the induced adverse reactions.

So, why continue to include it? In its distilled and powdered form (the product they add to drinking water), it is a toxic substance requiring those who work with it to wear hazardous-materials suits. This is bad shtuff!

Did I do enough homework?

Last edited by AspieUtah on 02 Jul 2015, 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

From the abstract:

This would appear to contradict the headline.

I always copy the headline of the cited source.


The research surveyors found doubts about the combined effects of multiple sources of fluoridation.

I don't understand how you reach that conclusion from the text you cited.

Stating in the results of a meta-analysis that there was insufficient data on a subject os saying that analysis of that subject was not possible with the data set that was used.

It's a statement that they failed to address the question.

Also, knowingly perpetuating or popularizing fallacious journalism is tantamount to dishonesty.

I just checked....the local Coca Cola Bottling plant - Great Plains - looks like it is in a location served by flouridated tap water - so is the town I live in, incidentally, and my dental bills are much cheaper because I never get cavities anymore. I haven't had a major cavity in the ten years I've been visiting the dentist and I go twice a year. As a child, I had them all the time, like nearly every visit.
So there could very well be flouride in the bottle of Coke if it was bottled at Great Plains, but what about other Coca Cola bottling plants in locations that do not add flouride? Should we all be buying our Coke from those, if they exist? and even if all of them are proven to contain flouride, which is the absolute worse thing on earth any of them could ever contain, I am certain, isn't it just like getting it out of the tap? It's no more compound than drinking a glass of flouridated water.

Not every local plant flouridates, btw. The local info is easy to find online. I don't drink local tap water much anyway, I drink bottled water because it just tastes better and the brand I drink isn't bottled locally. The local tap water is rumored to have Chromium 6 as well as aresenic, selium, uranium, because it comes from aquifers. I this Arkansas/Texas bottled tap is somehow immune or doesn't have it or doesn't come from an Aquifer even though, yes, I am aware of the dangers of bottled water and how it can create water shortages in local areas. Arkansas and south Texas gets plenty of rain though.

Hahaha, so maybe it is true, the bottled water has flouride in it? I did stop drinking soft drinks long ago, so maybe that's it? When I was a kid, I bought a 12 or 24 pack Dr Pepper or Coca Cola at the grocery store once a week but if I did the same thing now, I would feel like crap all the time because that stuff doesn't agree with me.

I drink gallons of water a day, as much as a 40 pound kid, and I haven't noticed any problems from drinking it and I've been drinking it for years and years and I would drink it rather than soft drinks any day. Even with all the contaminates it's better than the body shock they put in Dr Pepper.

But if you want the flouride out, that's good and fine, I just wonder why it's so popular among The Right to cherry pick their bans. It was Palin and Christie among the complainers when NYC wanted to ban those extra large cups at places like McDonalds. Soft drinks are actually worse than water. Even when they take the sugar out and add their "artificial sweetners" it's still worse for your body than water, albeit not as bad as versions containing high fructose corn syrup.
I just don't get The Right because they cherry pick their arguments based on what liberal do not want. So, if liberals do not want Coca Cola, The Right must insist or it's an infringement on liberty. If those dastardly Liberals were to say, get rid of all the flouride within the food chain, The Right would, suddenly, be espousing how we should have the freedom to choose or not choose the flouride and the companies that produce it would suffer financially - same sort of arguments they use whenever Liberals want to ban anything.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive ... micid=1174

there is no reason for fluoride to be added to the water, in a lot of the country it occurs naturally in the water and adding more fluoride will actually damage your teeth as it did mine.

In Europe they get fluoride mainly thru salt which it is added to, at least then it is voluntary and measured

You are correct. I am a bastard.

probably because there's insufficient studies with useful data about flouridation.
of the 155 studies the report looked at, only 3 were of sufficient quality to be included.

Now that i am not at work, I will translate for the scientifically illiterate.

Fluoridation of water DOES prevent cavities.

Most of the studies happened before most people had fluoridated tooth paste, so we don't know whether things are different today.



We don't have any idea whether poor people and wealthy people had similar or different rates of tooth decay.



We don't have any idea what the rates of tooth decay might look like in an area where fluoridation was a thing for a while and then not a thing.



None of the studies we read asked whether fluoridation prevents tooth decay in adults differently than in children.



if they put 0.7ppm of fluoride in the water, 12% of people are at risk of streaky tooth enamel.



If you wanted to give us some money to find out about rates of tooth decay for people who have fluoridated water AND brush regularly, we might be cool with that.

Summary:

If anything, the results of this study suggest that you could pay some scientists to figure out what the ideal rate of fluoridation to prevent both cavities and streaky enamel might be in societies where people brush their teeth.

The bit about 12% of people being at risk of streaky enamel at 0.7 ppm number is probably in reference to the CDC recently changing their recommended level from 0.7 to 1.2 ppm to just 0.7 ppm.

And it's possible that rich people brush their teeth more often than poor people but we don't know.

as an aside, actual symptoms of fluorosis are pretty freakin rare. You can find reports of fluorosis in the medical databases alright, but no symptoms. Pretty much always some kid ate some toothpaste and their mom rushed them to the emergency room, and the doc looked at their chart and gave them a high calcium milk shake.

I can just look in the mirror at my own teeth, Wisconsin's water is flooded with fluoride that is naturally occurring in addition the stuff that is added as well as it being in every brand of toothpaste almost so fluorosis is far more common that you are letting on. I believe I should be be compensated for the damage done to my teeth by these public water companies, I did not consent. I am not someone's medical experiment.

do you also stand in the surf and yell at the water for lapping on your feet and stealing your epidermis away?