So My 8 Year Old Neice Tells me That Her School Gives Her Fluoride Pills. . .

[OsO]

Go back a few pages. It was in-between......



......and......




Oh, yeah.......

​

yea all you keep doing is emphasizing the fluoride intake from outside sources but completely ignoring the fluoride we ingest from fluoridated water when analyzing the dangers of fluoride intake.

you're also failing to understand the only time you lower something is when it's too high.

and you keep avoiding very direct questions.

and so...

you're still not getting it... so i want you to read this carefully.

the government lowered the fluoride levels in 2011 because all the fluoride we get from other sources here in the 21st century, combined with the fluoride we get from water fluoridation, makes the TOTAL amount of fluoride we ingest too high.

you can absolutely make the argument that we need better regulation of the other sources of fluoride, but that does not change the fact the government decided to regulate the fluoride in the water because that amount was too high in relation to the total amount we were ingesting.

there is absolutely no way to get around the FACT the government lowered the fluoride levels in the water because the levels were too high. the only time you lower something... is if it's too high. that's common sense.

it's intellectually dishonest to say the government lowered fluoride levels ONLY because of the fluoride coming from other sources and totally ignore the fluoride from water fluoridation since those are two sides of the same statement.

and no amount of youtube clips, smilies, or endorsements from the psuedo-skeptic coalition can change that

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

yea all you keep doing is emphasizing the fluoride intake from outside sources

Because that is known to be the cause of everything and you have failed to prove otherwise because you're a HORRIBLE debater and use......

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.

...as well as......

​

Least Plausible Hypothesis: ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."

There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.​

You have provided not one shred of scientific evidence to support anything you're arguing and have resorted to acting like a child.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

he government lowered the fluoride levels in 2011 because all the fluoride we get from other sources here in the 21st century, combined with the fluoride we get from water fluoridation, makes the TOTAL amount of fluoride we ingest too high.

This is why your argument fails. As a study linked earlier in the thread has shown, in areas without any fluoridated water, there were cases of fluorosis at about the same level as the areas that were fluoridated.

Here is the study: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/so-m...her-fluoride-pills.141528/page-3#post-6070958

This means those other sources are the cause of excess fluoride consumption all by themselves.

I already linked the other sources earlier in this thread here: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/so-m...her-fluoride-pills.141528/page-3#post-5309119

You should actually read the links and educate yourself instead of acting childish because you lost this debate due to lack of evidence.

Any further posts in this thread without evidence will be reported to the mods as trolling. I'm not opposed to discussing anything in a reasonable manner, but you're just butthurt now because you lost so I don't expect anything from you to be the least bit logical, reasonable or factual. I also don't expect you to read any of the links I posted because your feelings got hurt, but that's YOUR fault for being such a poor debater on a subject with which you aren't familiar.

Have a glass of cool, refreshing Liquid Life Energy™

/thread

​

 

[OsO]

This is why your argument fails. As a study linked earlier in the thread has shown, in areas without any fluoridated water, there were cases of fluorosis at about the same level as the areas that were fluoridated.

Here is the study: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/so-m...her-fluoride-pills.141528/page-3#post-6070958​

​

1. nowhere on the page you're linking does it refer to a study like the one you're describing. this is the page you're referring to correct?
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm where is the study you're referring to?


2. even if such a study does exist, and said study came to the conclusions you stated, you still can't make the leap from that "in areas without any fluoridated water, there were cases of fluorosis at about the same level as the areas that were fluoridated." to this: "those other sources are the cause of excess fluoride consumption all by themselves." because that wouldn't be an accurate statement. you're taking one study by one group of people in one place at one point in time and extrapolating the findings of that study to be applied in all circumstances. which, like i said, is not an accurate deduction.

if such a study exists is it evidence? of course. is it definitive evidence? no it's not... and you should know that.

3. on page 3 of this study that you just linked:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2204&page=3 it says clearly "The major sources of fluoride intake are water and other beverages, food, and fluoride containing dental products."

so how the fukk are you arbitrarily deciding NOT to include fluoridated water as one of the major sources of fluoride intake, and thus one of the main contributors of excessive fluoride intake? Fluoridated water plays a huge part in the fluoride we ingest, period, and study after study reiterates this. so again, you can't choose NOT to include water fluoridation when talking about fluoride intake just because it's convenient for your argument.

plus, if the only issue were fluoride from other sources then the government would have been more proactive in regulating those other sources, especially the food. but they chose to tighten regulations around the water, FURTHER EVIDENCE that the fluoride in water plays a huge role in fluoride intake.

so in short, your entire post was basura and you're still ignoring basic reality.

​

Any further posts in this thread without evidence will be reported to the mods as trolling.

lol you really are mad

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

1. nowhere on the page you're linking does it refer to a study like the one you're describing.

Yes, it does. Click it. The link you posted is not it. If you can't even follow simple directions, I'm not bothering to read the rest of your post.

I'll wait.​

 

[OsO]

Yes, it does. Click it. The link you posted is not it. If you can't even follow simple directions, I'm not bothering to read the rest of your post.

I'll wait.​

you have one post on that page, and this is the link in that post: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm

so wtf are you talking about?

or you could save everyone a lot of time and just link the study instead of linking a coli thread

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

you have one post on that page, and this is the link in that post: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm

That is not what is in the post. Stop being an imbecile and a sore loser because you lost any semblance of a hope of redeeming your bad argument with that link. Just so you can no longer weasel your way out of this sonning, the post number is #135 and the link takes you right to it. The link in the post is a PubMed article which destroys your latest objection.....just like EVERY previous one you've offered.

You Lose.​

 

[OsO]

That is not what is in the post.​

this was your initial post below. why dont you follow your own link and see where it goes.

As a study linked earlier in the thread has shown, in areas without any fluoridated water, there were cases of fluorosis at about the same level as the areas that were fluoridated.

Here is the study: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/so-m...her-fluoride-pills.141528/page-3#post-6070958

This means those other sources are the cause of excess fluoride consumption all by themselves.

I already linked the other sources earlier in this thread here: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/so-m...her-fluoride-pills.141528/page-3#post-5309119
​

then later on you wanna add

the post number is #135 and the link takes you right to it.​

but neither one of the links you posted goes to post #135

but anyway i went to post #135, and just like i thought the study presents evidence, but not definitive evidence. there is no way you can conclude this:

This means those other sources are the cause of excess fluoride consumption all by themselves.

from this study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10860326​

Risk of enamel fluorosis in nonfluoridated and optimally fluoridated populations: considerations for the dental professional.

Few studies have evaluated the impact of specific fluoride sources on the prevalence of enamel fluorosis in the population. The author conducted research to determine attributable risk percent estimates for mild-to-moderate enamel fluorosis in two populations of middle-school-aged children.

METHODS:
The author recruited two groups of children 10 to 14 years of age. One group of 429 had grown up in nonfluoridated communities; the other group of 234 had grown up in optimally fluoridated communities. Trained examiners measured enamel fluorosis using the Fluorosis Risk Index and measured early childhood fluoride exposure using a questionnaire completed by the parent. The author then calculated attributable risk percent estimates, or the proportion of cases of mild-to-moderate enamel fluorosis associated with exposure to specific early fluoride sources, based on logistic regression models.

RESULTS:
In the nonfluoridated study sample, sixty-five percent of the enamel fluorosis cases were attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol. An additional 34 percent were explained by the children having brushed more than once per day during the first two years of life. In the optimally fluoridated study sample, 68 percent of the enamel fluorosis cases were explained by the children using more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste during the first year of life, 13 percent by having been inappropriately given a fluoride supplement, and 9 percent by the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate.

CONCLUSIONS:
Enamel fluorosis in the nonfluoridated study sample was attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol and early toothbrushing behaviors. Enamel fluorosis in the optimally fluoridated study sample was attributed to early toothbrushing behaviors, inappropriate fluoride supplementation and the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:
By advising parents about the best early use of fluoride agents, health professionals play an important role in reducing the prevalence of clinically noticeable enamel fluorosis.

​

you couldn't find anyone in HL besides victoria who would back you up on that assertion because it's not a good deduction.

not only that, if your premise were correct and water fluoridation has no impact on excessive fluoride intake, then why would the government lower the fluoride levels in the water? because according to you lower fluoride levels in the water wouldn't do any good since the sole reason people have excessive fluoride intake is because of sources other than water fluoridation. do you see how your views defy our current reality? unless you're saying the government basically doesnt know wtf it's doing.

so if we're talking facts, the fact is tens of millions of americans (adults and children) have excessive fluoride intake. fact #2 is that water fluoridation is a major source of people's fluoride intake. and fact #3 is the government lowered the fluoride levels in the water in 2011 because they were concerned about people being exposed to too much fluoride. those are the facts.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

but neither one of the links you posted goes to post #135

Yes, the first one does. Just like you, your settings are retarded. That link and scientifically peer-reviewed study destroys your last objection.

You Lose.​

 

[OsO]

Yes, the first one does. Just like you, your settings are retarded. That link and scientifically peer-reviewed study destroys your last objection.

​

if you can get one other semi-intelligent poster to agree with your conclusion from that study ill stop posting in this thread forever. there's no way you can make what may be true for 650 middle schoolers in some random locale true for the rest of the united states with that weak ass study. no one with any scientific integrity would co sign what you're implying.

and you're also saying the government is a bunch of idiots for lowering the fluoride in the water since that wont do anything to curb excessive fluoride intake.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

if you can get one other semi-intelligent poster to agree with your conclusion from that study ill stop posting in this thread forever.

It's simple: If there were NO optimally-fluoridated water and people STILL got fluorosis, LOGIC concludes that fluoridated water is not at-fault.....but THOSE OTHER SOURCES.

Any further argument from you is just trolling due to butthurt.

Stevie Wonder can see that YOU LOSE.​

 

[OsO]

It's simple: If there were NO optimally-fluoridated water and people STILL got fluorosis, LOGIC concludes that fluoridated water is not at-fault.....but THOSE OTHER SOURCES.

Any further argument from you is just trolling due to butthurt.

Stevie Wonder can see that YOU LOSE.​

are you seriously trying to postulate that water fluoridation does not contribute to excessive fluoride intake for anyone in the united states based on this one study? the STUDY itself doesn't even conclude that lol.

But let's take a closer look at this "groundbreaking" study you're basing your entire argument on:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10860326

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The author conducted research to determine attributable risk percent estimates for mild-to-moderate enamel fluorosis in two populations of middle-school-aged children.

METHODS:
The author recruited two groups of children 10 to 14 years of age. One group of 429 had grown up in nonfluoridated communities; the other group of 234 (for a whopping total of 663 kids)had grown up in optimally fluoridated communities. Trained examiners measured enamel fluorosis using the Fluorosis Risk Index and measured early childhood fluoride exposure using a questionnaire completed by the parent. (a questionnaire breh? )The author then calculated attributable risk percent estimates, or the proportion of cases of mild-to-moderate enamel fluorosis associated with exposure to specific early fluoride sources, based on logistic regression models

RESULTS:
In the nonfluoridated study sample, sixty-five percent of the enamel fluorosis cases were attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol. An additional 34 percent were explained by the children having brushed more than once per day during the first two years of life. In the optimally fluoridated study sample, 68 percent of the enamel fluorosis cases were explained by the children using more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste during the first year of life, 13 percent by having been inappropriately given a fluoride supplement, and 9 percent by the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate.

CONCLUSIONS:
Enamel fluorosis in the nonfluoridated study sample was attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol and early toothbrushing behaviors. Enamel fluorosis in the optimally fluoridated study sample was attributed to early toothbrushing behaviors, inappropriate fluoride supplementation and the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:
By advising parents about the best early use of fluoride agents, health professionals play an important role in reducing the prevalence of clinically noticeable enamel fluorosis.


____________________

663 kids breh a questionnaire breh calculating cases based on logistic regression models breh stop it fam this is hardly definitive. there's no way you can reach YOUR conclusion from THIS study.

that's almost worse than when you tried to refute a harvard study with a blog post earlier in the thread


plus, how can you logically argue that water fluoridation doesn't contribute to excessive fluoride intake when it's one of the major sources we get our ingested fluoride from?


and the final death blow to your theory: if water fluoridation doesn't play a role in excessive fluoride intake, then why would the government lower water fluoridation levels in their battle to curb excessive fluoride intake?

http://nypost.com/2011/01/07/us-government-wants-to-lower-level-of-fluoride-in-drinking-water/

ATLANTA — Fluoride in drinking water — credited with dramatically cutting cavities and tooth decay — may now be too much of a good thing. It’s causing spots on some kids’ teeth.

A reported increase in the spotting problem is one reason the federal government will announce Friday it plans to lower the recommended limit for fluoride in water supplies — the first such change in nearly 50 years.

_________________________

the government wouldn't lower the fluoride levels in the water if the fluoride levels in the water weren't contributing to excessive fluoride intake. see how basic that is?


so as you can see funkdoc... you lose

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

are you seriously trying to postulate that water fluoridation does not contribute to excessive fluoride intake for anyone in the united states based on this one study? the STUDY itself doesn't even conclude that lol.

CONCLUSIONS:
Enamel fluorosis in the nonfluoridated study sample was attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol and early toothbrushing behaviors. Enamel fluorosis in the optimally fluoridated study sample was attributed to early toothbrushing behaviors, inappropriate fluoride supplementation and the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate.

You Lose.

You're now trolling.

@Candor ..........​

 

[OsO]

that study is talking about that specific population of 663, not the entirety of the 40 millions cases of excessive fluoride in the united states. you CAN'T equate the two.

plus did you even look at how they came to those conclusions? the logistics of the study were not strong.

and there's still this...

and the final death blow to your theory: if water fluoridation doesn't play a role in excessive fluoride intake, then why would the government lower water fluoridation levels in their battle to curb excessive fluoride intake?



http://nypost.com/2011/01/07/us-government-wants-to-lower-level-of-fluoride-in-drinking-water/

ATLANTA — Fluoride in drinking water — credited with dramatically cutting cavities and tooth decay — may now be too much of a good thing. It’s causing spots on some kids’ teeth.

A reported increase in the spotting problem is one reason the federal government will announce Friday it plans to lower the recommended limit for fluoride in water supplies — the first such change in nearly 50 years.

_________________________

the government wouldn't lower the fluoride levels in the water if the fluoride levels in the water weren't contributing to excessive fluoride intake. see how basic that is?


so as you can see funkdoc... you lose

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

that study is talking about that specific population of 663, not the entirety of the 40 millions cases of excessive fluoride in the united states. you CAN'T equate the two.

Well, this should dispel any doubt.......​

Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis

Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Water

December 2010

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Pg. 58

Drinking water can be obtained from non-fluoridated municipal systems, private wells, cisterns, springs, or from bottled water. The fluoride levels in these sources may vary considerably depending on the source, time of year, and the level of treatment. Certain geological formations are rich in fluoride-containing minerals from which fluoride can leach into surrounding groundwater or surface water. According to Fleischer et al. (1974), some groundwaters average as much as 8 ppm of fluoride or more. Groundwater from the Wilcox Basin in Southeastern Arizona can contain up to 282 ppm fluoride (Kister et al., 1966). Most water from this basin is used primarily for irrigation. However, it is also the water source for several public drinking water systems (Towne and Freark, 2001).

Fluoride levels in groundwater in the coterminous United States were mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (see Figure 3-1). Some of the areas indicated in Figure 3-1 correspond to areas of aridity as shown in Figure 3-2 (McGinnies et al., 1968). In these areas drinking water consumption rates may be greater than average, and combined with the high levels of fluoride in groundwater, may contribute to higher than normal exposures to fluoride from private drinking water systems and more frequent exceedences of the SMCL. States that have reported MCL violations most frequently to the Safe Drinking Water Information System – Federal (SDWIS/FED) during the period from 1998 to 2006 are Arizona, Florida, Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Virginia. All states have some areas with high levels of geological fluoride.

In 1993, the CDC reported on naturally occurring fluoride levels in U.S. water sources. Although there is a range in fluoride concentrations within each state, in most cases the maximum reported concentrations correspond fairly well with the areas predicted to have high levels of fluoride in groundwater (Fig. 3-1). According to CDC (1993), maximum concentrations of 7 mg/L or greater were reported for Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas. Seventeen states had maximum concentrations exceeding 4.0 mg/L, and 32 states had maximum concentrations ≥2.0 mg/L in some localities. In most cases only a small proportion of the total sampled population was located in areas where the fluoride levels were high. The CDC (1993) estimated that of the approximately 10 million people in the U.S. with naturally fluoridated public drinking water, approximately 67% had fluoride concentrations of ≤1.2 mg/L; about 14% had concentrations of 1.3–1.9 mg/L; 14% had concentrations of 2.0–3.9 mg/L and 2% had levels of ≥4.0 mg/L.

Due to the differences in groundwater fluoride, private water sources (particularly well-water) are likely to have highly variable fluoride concentrations. Felsenfeld and Roberts (1991) reported one case of fluoride-associated osteosclerosis (elevation in bone density) in an individual whose drinking water well had an average concentration of about 8 mg F/L.

The EPA set the upper range to 0.7 Mg/L in 2011 due to the amount of fluoride people are receiving from sources other than PROPERLY FLUORIDATED WATER.

60% of the United States does not receive PROPERLY FLUORIDATED WATER and is in fact, receiving amounts far above the EPA range established.

You Lose.
​