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

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

One more for those convinced that European countries are somehow 'smarter' than America for not putting 'toxic medicine' in their water supplies......

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16231748
​

Increasing the public health effectiveness of fluoridated salt.
Marthaler TM.
Source
Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Dental Center, University of Zurich. tmarthal@zui.unizh.ch

Abstract
This paper aims at assessing the public health potential of salt fluoridation schemes. There is now solid evidence which shows that the cariostatic effectiveness of universal salt fluoridation is equivalent to that of water fluoridation in both the permanent and primary dentition. In countries of continental Europe, only domestic salt is fluoridated, and its consistent use may be expected to warrant a 30% reduction of caries prevalence. However, the effectiveness in the population at large is lower because only part of the population uses the fluoridated domestic salt. Under these conditions, it must be assumed that the effectiveness is further reduced because families in low S-E strata use fluoridated salt (FS) less frequently than those in the higher S-E strata who are known to use preventive methods like toothbrushing twice a day with a fluoride dentifrice more regularly. Model calculations tend to show that in Germany, where FS has reached a market share of 60%, the overall effectiveness is 14% instead of 30%. For France with a market share of 30% of the fluoridated domestic salt, model calculations lead to an overall effectiveness of 8%. In order to obtain a substantial decline of caries in the entire population, it is important to aim for a high market share of the FS of 80%, or preferably 90%. This goal can be reached with a relatively small budget. The task of health ministries would be to promote the switch from unfluoridated salt to FS; however, such promotion is often withheld by health ministries. It is possible, through modest price increases of salt, to finance effective campaigns inducing the majority of the population to use the fluoridated variety. On a world wide scale, fluoridation of salt has established itself as an efficient public health measure. It may be particularly beneficial for developing countries because it is by far the cheapest method and it is compatible with the use of fluoridated toothpastes.

Fluoridealert.org
if you believe ANYTHING from that website or post information from it as 'evidence'.


​

 

[UserNameless]

Well, lets just call this what it is. A eugenics program.

They've had fluoride programs for more than a quarter century.


Stop it.

 

[OsO]

Start here:

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/connett.html
http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/connett/01.html
http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/fluoride.html

​

​

lol basura

And LOL @ YOU demanding some 'intellectual integrity' when your entire argument hinges on the half-baked opinions of a hypocritical quack using junk science

the website contains the opinions and conclusions of several hundred people, some of them doctors and dentists, and all of whom reference data and their sources. one can easily cross reference the sources for validity. did you find any inconsistencies with the scientific data produced by the site? if you did so please share, we are all in this to learn. if you did not find inconsistencies stfu

Let me destroy another objection you've raised:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156167

Here's another one just because I'm feeling generous......

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156166



​

stop trying to ignore reality. i posted links to documents where state officials used the words "toxic" and "medicinal" in reference to fluoride in water. either prove the documents are false or fall back.

plus your response was about fluoride in salt ...and i see where you're trying to go with that... but in reality that leads back to one of my original points that water fluoridation is unnecessary because we get fluoride from so many other sources. And the bigger point is with water fluoridation we are all at risk of consuming too much fluoride, as evidenced by the many thousands of cases of fluorosis in the US, and the govenment mandating the water fluoridation levels be lowered in 2011.

which reminds me, as per the usual you didnt address all the important points... so i repeat

if the fluoride levels in the US were safe and a a optimum level--there would not be so many documented cases of dental fluorosis, and the government, the EPA, and the department of health and human services would not have advocated for a lowering of the fluoridation levels in 2011. can you comprehend that? and can you intelligently address this point?

also, here are some more articles from that site you posted:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144112/

"Fluorides are present in the environment. Excessive systemic exposure to fluorides can lead to disturbances of bone homeostasis (skeletal fluorosis) and enamel development (dental/enamel fluorosis). The severity of dental fluorosis is also dependent upon fluoride dose and the timing and duration of fluoride exposure."

Fluorine is a common element in the earth’s crust. Fluorides are naturally present in the soil, rocks, and water throughout the world, with higher concentrations in areas where there have been recent/past pyroclastic activities or geologic uplift. Fluorides are also widely used in many industrial processes. The major sources of systemic fluoride exposure are the diet (food and water) (USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods – 2004,http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html) and fluoride-containing dental products.

Fluoridation of community drinking water to prevent dental caries is considered as one of the ten most important public health achievements of the 20th century (Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries, 1999). Concurrent with the decline in dental caries has been an increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis, a side-effect of fluoride exposure. Dental fluorosis remains highly prevalent world-wide. As recently as 2005, 23% of persons in the United States aged 6 to 39 years had very mild or greater enamel fluorosis (Beltran-Aguilar et al., 2005)."

thats a huge number. 23% of people in the US ages 6-39? that could be in the 50 million range. dont you think thats a red flag that MAYBE there's too much fluoride in the water?

let's continue...

"Fluoride in various chemical forms, doses, and exposures has physicochemical and biologic effects on cells and tissues. A narrow therapeutic/toxicity window and biphasic actions further complicate our understanding of fluoride’s effects. Fluorides mediate their actions through MAPK signaling pathways, leading to changes in gene expression, cell stress, and even cell death."


i already know what you're thinking... PROPER dosages. but ill reemphasize the bigger point is that WE DONT KNOW THE PROPER DOSAGE. if we had the proper dosage there would be much less dental and skeletal fluorosis. is it possible water fluoridation could be contributing to the negative health conditions associated with excessive fluoride intake?

 

[OsO]

let's read excerpts from another report:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/

"Natural calcium fluoride with low solubility and toxicity from ingestion is distinct from fully soluble toxic industrial fluorides."

"Synthetic industrial fluoride compounds lack calcium and are listed toxic substances (Buck [1], Gleason [2], Blakiston [3], The Merck Index [4]). Calcium fluoride CaF2 is found in natural minerals and is not labeled a toxic compound because of the comparatively high lethal oral acute dose of the purified compound when tested in mammals (LD50 ~ 3,750

mg/kg). The fluoride compounds, sodium fluoride NaF and fluorosilicic acid H2SiF6, added into municipal water for human ingestion purposes are synthesized artificially by industrial reaction and have been used as rodenticides, insecticides, and pediculicides, with acute oral lethal doses in experimental animals comparable to arsenic and lead (LD50 ~ 125

mg/kg) (The Merck Index [4]) due to the fluoride at ~60–90

mg/kg.

Fluoride is not a normal constituent of the mammalian bloodstream (Merck manual for Health Care Professionals [6]). It has no nutritive value [7] or physiologic function but has been believed by some to be useful for teeth based on an initial correlation with natural calcium fluoride in drinking water [1, 8]. The chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel is hydroxyapatite that contains calcium phosphate, not fluoride. After nearly 7 decades of adding industrial fluoride compounds into public water supplies in the U.S. and other countries that have agreed to this policy, the principal documented effects of ingested fluoride on teeth are to increase incidence of abnormal permanent enamel fluorosis during teeth development and to abnormally incorporate into underlying dentin bone (National Research Council (NRC) [9]). Fluorosis, unsightly at best, afflicts ~5 million U.S. teenagers aged 12–15 as of 2004 [8]."

"Fluorine leads all elements in electronegativity and is extremely reactive and not found in nature. But fluoride is permanent because the ion has no electronegativity, cannot be reduced further, or oxidized by any known substance. Fluoride instead associates with positive charged ions in particular aluminum, calcium, and iron. Thus its toxicity depends on the environment in which it resides."

"Kidney dialysis patients have frequently been killed from fluoridated water during accidental fluoride overfeeds [14] because dialysis units are not equipped to eliminate fluoride from blood [22]. Even more alarming are kidney patient lethal fluoride poisonings from a form of congestive heart failure if hemodialysis units use fluoridated water containing targeted concentrations of fluoride. Fluoridated water at 0.7–1

ppm is unsuitable for dialysis and the FDA has published instructions to that effect. Deaths have even occurred because fluoride-removing deionizer resins when full leached fluoride back into the water used for dialysis."

"Industrial fluoride in drinking water can cause GI distress in human subgroups because fluoride converts to HF in the stomach (NRC [9], p. 268). Even at low concentrations HF can aggravate and prevent healing of ulcerated tissue."

"This study indicates that industrial fluoride added to drinking water forms intact corrosive hydrofluoric acid under acidic conditions that prevail in the stomach of man (pH 1.5–3) and animals. Ingested fluoride from water enters the bloodstream as an artificial component, not a normal constituent, and disrupts intermolecular hydrogen bonding, forming interatomic hydrogen bonding."

"The infusion of industrial fluorosilicic acid with caustic sodium hydroxide into water supplies introduces sodium, that is not a component of fresh drinking water, plus fluoride without calcium. Sodium and fluoride are the ingredients used in rodenticides and in the prescription drug Luride which is not approved by the FDA for ingestion. The policy adopted by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1950 remains encouraged by the trade organization the American Dental Association, dental insurance providers, and dental officials in the Oral Health Division. But none of these groups has authority to chemically treat public water supplies. The rationale for the infusions remains based on early observations that were not supported by careful experimentation using the scientific method. When examined in detail this proved to be an anecdotal incorrect correlation."

"The decision to infuse industrial fluoride compounds into public water supplies to permeate the blood and organs of consumers with fluoride as an ingested dental prophylactic was an error that resulted in serious consequences including loss of life. Although many believe that the infusions decrease caries without causing systemic damage, the data reported here along with other published studies do not support the policy [1, 7–12, 26, 27, 30–35, 40, 41, 52–54]. Insidious effects that can occur on musculoskeletal, neurologic, reproductive, and endocrine systems from long-term ingestion of fluoride in water [8, 9, 11] and the cardiovascular effects discussed here emphasize the seriousness of fluoridation especially in soft water regions lacking antidote calcium. Also fluoride exposure is now from diverse sources."

"Essentially all European countries do not fluoridate public water supplies but some do offer optional fluoridated salt that is not as extensively consumed as water."

here's another one just because im feeling generous
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114922/

 

[OsO]

in all seriousness tho... i think too many people are holding onto the "proper dosage of fluoride" argument when it has been proven scientifically and demonstrated in the populous that we dont always know how much fluoride we are ingesting from all the different sources. so im sure fluoride in its proper dosages can be managed by the body and disposed of by the kidneys (although i'd still like to see more extensive and definitive medical research done on this topic), but the ENTIRE point is that we don't know if we're exceeding the proper dosages, but we do know that some people ARE exceeding the maximum intake of fluoride as evidenced by all the above... so at the minimum we need to take a step back and put water fluoridation on hold until we know more definitely was the safe/optimum levels of water fluoridation are. and thats the only consensus i want us to reach.

the negative health effects of too much fluoride in the body is unquestionable. the only question is how much fluoride is too much fluoride? and until we know the definitive answer to that question the wise thing would be to stop water fluoridation. there is to much smoke and there are too many red flags to not question and investigate this matter thoroughly. i mean the government even had to step in only 2 1/2 years ago and say there was too much fluoride in the water, and that is the fukking beast! lol what else do you want?

lol please try and sit with this for a minute before responding

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

the website contains the opinions and conclusions of several hundred people, some of them doctors and dentists, and all of whom reference data and their sources. one can easily cross reference the sources for validity. did you find any inconsistencies with the scientific data produced by the site? if you did so please share, we are all in this to learn. if you did not find inconsistencies stfu​

That entire website is a sham and their 'references' and 'sources' are just other anti-fluoridation sites connected directly and indirectly to Fluoride Action Network.
​

stop trying to ignore reality. i posted links to documents where state officials used the words "toxic" and "medicinal" in reference to fluoride in water. either prove the documents are false or fall back.

I've already proven that water fluoridation is neither 'toxic' nor 'medicinal'. I could care less about those documents since what they state has been rebutted with evidence.
​

which reminds me, as per the usual you didnt address all the important points

You have no 'important points' worth addressing. You have lame, unsupported arguments that are older than everyone on this site.​

i already know what you're thinking... PROPER dosages. but ill reemphasize the bigger point is that WE DONT KNOW THE PROPER DOSAGE.

We've known what the 'proper dosage' is since 1945. 1.0 ppm or less.​

is it possible water fluoridation could be contributing to the negative health conditions associated with excessive fluoride intake?

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

let's read excerpts from another report:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/

You really should read all the way through those since that post just destroyed any semblance of an argument you might have had in regards to proper water fluoridation being 'toxic'. It only cites industrial accidents and overfeeds of fluoride to dialysis patients. It also states that dosages of approximately 3,500 mg/kg over an extended period of time can cause bone weakening, dosages of approx. 7,000 mg/kg can cause arthritic bone-pain, and dosages of 10,000 mg/kg can cause total immobility. Good thing the water here is fluoridated to 1.0 mg/L or less instead of 3,500, 7,000, or 10,000.....​

here's another one just because im feeling generous
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114922/

That's from 2011 and the reduction is actually the lower value of the EPA's acceptable range of 0.7 - 1.2 mg/L. You're two years behind the rest of the country..........Also, this does nothing to prove that fluoridation is in any way 'toxic' or 'medicinal'. Just so everyone reading this fully understands what it really states:

"There are several reasons for this change, including that Americans have access to more sources of fluoride than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.

That reminds me of something I stated earlier in this thread:

The water is absolutely safe at the EPA recommended fluoridation levels. What isn't is the DOSAGE of fluoride a child may receive due to the amount you can get from other sources outside of water/toothpaste.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.​

 

[OsO]

That entire website is a sham and their 'references' and 'sources' are just other anti-fluoridation sites connected directly and indirectly to Fluoride Action Network.​

​

they back their statements with scientific studies and references. now back up your claim, and prove one of their claims to be false. here's the website again:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/

​

I've already proven that water fluoridation is neither 'toxic' nor 'medicinal'. I could care less about those documents since what they state has been rebutted with evidence.​

​

but we've already established that in conjunction with other sources of fluoride that the 1ppm in water fluoridation CAN be toxic to people. so wtf are you talking about how did you prove water fluoridation is not toxic? tell the hundreds of thousands of people walking around with dental and skeletal fluorosis from ingesting too much fluoride that you, funkdoc, proved water fluoridation is not toxic... i'm sure they'll be glad to hear that

also, the FDA has fluoride listed as a drug in terms of water fluoridation.

but yes, let's just ignore the official state documents, ignore the FDA, ignore the CDC, and ignore the US govt... funkdoc says we good then we good

​

You have no 'important points' worth addressing. You have lame, unsupported arguments that are older than everyone on this site.​

​

is that the official white flag? or you really have no response for my question? and please, come with a reasonable thought out response... again, my statement is:

if the fluoride levels in the US were safe and a a optimum level--there would not be so many documented cases of dental fluorosis, and the government, the EPA, and the department of health and human services would not have advocated for a lowering of the fluoridation levels in 2011. can you intelligently address this point?

We've known what the 'proper dosage' is since 1945. 1.0 ppm or less.​

the EPA, the dept of health and human services, and the federal government disagree
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/07/fluoride.recommendations/index.html


"The federal government is recommending changing the amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years.

The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis -- a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children's teeth.

The government is proposing that the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water be set at 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. "

wrong again

 

[OsO]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm

Key findings
Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004 and the 1986-1987 National Survey of Oral Health in U.S. School Children

• Less than one-quarter of persons aged 6-49 in the United States had some form of dental fluorosis.
• The prevalence of dental fluorosis was higher in adolescents than in adults and highest among those aged 12-15.
• Adolescents aged 12-15 in 1999-2004 had a higher prevalence of dental fluorosis than adolescents aged 12-15 in 1986-1987.

so with water fluoridation at "safe and optimum" levels, somehow the cases of dental fluorosis have managed to increase. it's not looking good for the "we're good because we're at optimum levels" crowd

 

[OsO]

this guy has done a lot of work in this field:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/11/dr-bill-osmunson-on-fluoride.aspx

Dr. Bill Osmunson is an avid supporter of fluoride opposition in the US. He's particularly suited to discuss the health dangers of fluoride, not just because he's been a full-time dentist for over three decades, but also because he has a Masters in Public Health (MPH).

According to Dr. Osmunson, there are some studies suggesting benefit, but "if you combine them all together, I am convinced that where there was a benefit, it's no longer there, in part because we're ingesting far too much fluoride."

In essence, there may be some minor benefit up to a certain point and even that is highly debatable. The bottom line is that the drawbacks and health risks begin to far outweigh any benefit from using fluoride..

"Is it appropriate to put in the substance into water, where some people may drink less than a liter a day and others drink up to 19 liters a day?" he asks. "That's a huge difference in the dosage amount of fluoride that they are getting. And what about the other sources?

Once fluoride became accepted as wonderful, we started putting it in toothpaste and of course there are the pesticides, the creolite, and the post-harvest fumigants. And then there are the dental fillings, the dental topical treatment, the fluoride varnishes in the medical products, and the Teflon pans…

I started to look at how much are we getting. We're getting much more; two-three times more than what we were when they started fluoridation."

This is a very important point: the fluoride added to your water is NOT pharmaceutical grade. It's a toxic industrial waste product, which is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. (I need to investigate this, i hope this is not true

About 75 percent of Americans get fluoridated water, and just over 65 percent have artificially fluoridated water with hydrofluorosilicic acid; the toxic waste product from phosphate industries. Meanwhile, naturally occurring fluoride is found in many water supplies, especially in volcanic regions and areas with harder water.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not distinguish between these two types of fluoride, but they should.

Naturally occurring fluoride in hard water areas often has a calcium fluoride. Calcium and fluoride bond very well and are not absorbed well by your body. Hydrofluorosilicic acid, on the other hand, dissolves easier and is absorbed by your body at a greater rate.

Natural calcium fluoride is about 1,000 times less toxic than hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride, and this is because your body can't absorb nearly as much. (Note: Sodium fluoride is pharmaceutical grade fluoride, which is used in most studies, but NOT the kind added to water supplies.)

Dr. Osmunson touches on an array of health problems caused by fluoride ingestion and exposure through the skin in this interview. To get all of it, I highly recommend listening to it in its entirety.

For example, fluoride easily accumulates in your pineal gland. In fact, your pineal gland has the highest concentration of fluoride of any organ in your body, even more than your teeth and bones. This can wreak havoc with your melatonin production, which in turn can disrupt your biological clock and even influence your cancer risk.

Another area of great concern is your thyroid gland. As your fluoride load increases, your thyroid hormone production tends to decrease. Not only can this contribute to hypothyroidism, but it also increases your risk of developing goiter. If you're iodine deficient, the negative effects can be magnified, as fluoride (as well as bromine) has a similar molecular structure as iodine and can take the place of iodine in your thyroid.





________________________

so again, if were ingesting fluoride from all these different sources, and we're ingesting way more fluoride than when water was first fluoridated, perhaps it's safe to say we should either significantly lower the fluoride levels in water or dissolve the practice altogether

 

[OsO]

awww man, he goes in on this one... im gonna have to come back and drop some excerpts for the lazy-wont-read crowd:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...TNaWMkKrNwPBWCw&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc&cad=rja

fyi it's a downloaded doc

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

they back their statements with scientific studies and references. now back up your claim, and prove one of their claims to be false. here's the website again:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Here you go......



Some more information on this 'doctor'. These are the people you trust....

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/whyte.html

but we've already established that in conjunction with other sources of fluoride that the 1ppm in water fluoridation CAN be toxic to people. so wtf are you talking about how did you prove water fluoridation is not toxic?

I proved that PROPERLY fluoridated water isn't toxic. Now, you're trying to move the goalpost by including OTHER sources of fluoride in order to make a point that I already covered.​

tell the hundreds of thousands of people walking around with dental and skeletal fluorosis from ingesting too much fluoride that you, funkdoc, proved water fluoridation is not toxic... i'm sure they'll be glad to hear that

also, the FDA has fluoride listed as a drug in terms of water fluoridation.

Those people don't live in the United States and their symptoms are due to extremely high doses of naturally-occurring fluoride in their water and other sources (like burning coal) above and beyond that in properly fluoridated water. The FDA does not list fluoride as a drug for water fluoridation of municipalities because it has NO JURISDICTION OVER MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER. That is overseen by the EPA. The FDA lists it as a drug in bottled water, toothpastes, supplements, etc.

You fail.​

but yes, let's just ignore the official state documents, ignore the FDA, ignore the CDC, and ignore the US govt... funkdoc says we good then we good

I ignore the incorrect/biased/non-scientific information you've been disseminating and pay heed to what is correct, non-biased and scientific.
​

the EPA, the dept of health and human services, and the federal government disagree
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/07/fluoride.recommendations/index.html


"The federal government is recommending changing the amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years.

The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis -- a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children's teeth.

The government is proposing that the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water be set at 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. "

That isn't a change. 0.7 ppm is the lower end of the range established by the EPA. I guess you didn't see the end of the sentence you quoted where it states ".....1.0 ppm OR LESS"

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal and your arguments are laughable.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

awww man, he goes in on this one... im gonna have to come back and drop some excerpts for the lazy-wont-read crowd:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CE0QFjAFOAo&url=http://washingtonsafewater.com/wp-content/uploads/osmunson-response-to-goldbaum-11-13-12.doc&ei=IIQkUr2cItLFsATIjIDoDw&usg=AFQjCNHZWXVNkgKUAN91HfKNgoDhwaOa3g&sig2=ZVzuOiUTNaWMkKrNwPBWCw&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc&cad=rja

fyi it's a downloaded doc

He failed for the same reason your entire argument fails: He insists that water fluoridation is a 'drug' when it isn't. He insists that there is no benefit to health when there is. He insists that there isn't enough data to determine anything, but there is over 80 years' worth. He insists that there should be more testing done, but the testing will NEVER stop.

In-short: his argument is as fallaciously flawed, biased, uninformed, cherry-picked, and scared as yours. Of course you'd agree with that sloppily hashed together long diatribe of misinformation and think he 'went in' because you didn't read this in-full.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

so with water fluoridation at "safe and optimum" levels, somehow the cases of dental fluorosis have managed to increase. it's not looking good for the "we're good because we're at optimum levels" crowd

Yet again, you're just showing your ignorance and 'cherry-picking'. The fact of the matter is too much fluoride is not due to water fluoridation, but more sources of fluoride in the food supply. You KNOW how much is in the water, but if you're not checking the food, then you're liable to get fluorosis due to exceeding the optimal DOSAGE......like taking 100 aspirin instead of just one.

You fail......again.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

so again, if were ingesting fluoride from all these different sources, and we're ingesting way more fluoride than when water was first fluoridated, perhaps it's safe to say we should either significantly lower the fluoride levels in water or dissolve the practice altogether

You answered your own question. It isn't the water that is the issue, it's the OTHER SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. 1.0 ppm or less of fluoridated water has been scientifically proven to benefit humanity in thousands of trials/studies and over half a century of use. How about YOU pay more attention to other sources of fluoride besides drinking water because the exact amount in them ISN'T known?​

• Processed cereals and other foods The act of processing foods can increase the concentrations of fluoride found in these products.
• Mechanically de-boned chicken: a 1999 Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry study found that the fluoride in mechanically separated chicken contributes to the risk of dental fluorosis in children under the age of eight.
• Infant formula bear in mind the dangers of fluoride poisoning are particularly high in young developing children
• Fish and Seafood: particularly canned fish and shell fish
• Foods cooked in Teflon pans
• Beer and wine
• Juice
• Soda
• Tea certain decaffeinated teas, iced teas, and instant teas appear to be most harmful
• Cigarettes
• Fluoridated salt US and Canada do not have fluoridated salt programs, though dozens of nations have implemented these health programs
• Anesthetics enflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane.

Cutting out water fluoridation will do NOTHING due to these other sources' proliferation but I don't see you or any anti-fluoridationist/CT saying a damned thing about them.

Not only does your entire argument against fluoridating municipal water fail, but it's hypocritical. Instead of going after unregulated sources of fluoride, you're trying to scare people away from regulated sources that are proven safe and beneficial.

You also have the AUDACITY to use Mercola.com as evidence: a 'proven' quack-site:

http://acsh.org/2013/05/blog-hits-the-right-note-on-chemophobia/

http://acsh.org/2011/04/ignore-that...new-mammogram-no-matter-what-dr-mercola-says/

http://acsh.org/2011/04/vaccine-den...ization-awareness-week-with-cbs-jumbotron-ad/

http://acsh.org/2010/07/dispatch-aspartame-by-a-different-name/

http://acsh.org/2011/01/chemophobia-and-chicken-mcnuggets/

http://acsh.org/2003/02/beef-bashing/

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

​