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

[OsO]

Here you go......



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

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

​

umm... the white guy in the video is flat out lying. he talks about a consensus amongst doctors about water fluoridation when i've proved there is anything but a consensus. terrible way to start a rebuttal, with lies and misdirection smh he even calls sodium fluoride a mineral like any other lol terrible.

so as you like to say... FAIL.

so again, link something from Fluoridealert.org that has been PROVEN false or stfu

​

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.​

​

dental fluorosis in the US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm

"Twenty-three percent of persons aged 6-49 had dental fluorosis in 1999-2004. Approximately 2% had moderate dental fluorosis and less than 1% had severe dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis was most prevalent among children aged 12-15, and less prevalent among older age groups. The prevalence of dental fluorosis among children aged 6-11 was lower than the prevalence among adolescents aged 12-15. This may be explained by an incomplete set of permanent teeth among children aged 6-11; some posterior permanent teeth, including premolars and second molars, erupt between ages 10 and 12.

The levels of very mild, mild, and moderate or severe dental fluorosis were higher among adolescents aged 12-15 in 1999-2004 than in 1986-1987."

also the FDA labeling fluoride a drug:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/fda-2000a.pdf
"Fluoride, when used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal, is a
drug that is subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulation."

FAIL... again.

​

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"​

​

but it's not 1ppm or less. it's .7ppm or less. so your statement would be incorrect.

FAIL.

​

all in all, i understand what you're saying with the proper dosage argument. but i still have the same question that you have yet to answer adequately. if the water fluoridation were at safe and optimum levels, then why did the government mandate the levels be lowered in 2011?

also, i understand fluoride intake is increasing in terms of other sources, but to me thats all the more reason to stop water fluoridation because that's something we CAN control. we should drop water fluoridation because of all the extra fluoride we ingest from other sources, the accumulation of which can and has been toxic to humans.

it seems like water fluoridation may have been useful when we were not getting enough fluoride intake (although im still not convinced the pros outweigh the potential cons), but now that we ARE getting enough fluoride, both externally and internally, maybe it's time to stop water fluoridation as it has outlived its usefulness. to me, even fluoridating salt is a much more reasonable alternative than fluoridating the water supply. or we could just brush our teeth every morning





so ill repeat the question again:
if water fluoridation was at safe and optimum levels, then why did the government mandate the levels be lowered in 2011?

 

[OsO]

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.


​

but it's been proven HARMFUL and EXCESSIVE to those children and people who are already getting enough fluoride from other sources. so in these cases it has outlived its usefulness and even become damaging to some people. do you get it? we have found better ways of getting fluoride to people than by fluoridating the water supply... water fluoridation is no longer needed.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

umm... the white guy in the video is flat out lying.

No, Fluoridealaert and 'Dr. Whyte' are lying and the CDC, ADA, FDA, AMA, and WHO amongst other organizations along with 80 years of science on the matter all state the same things he said in the video.

You fail.​

if water fluoridation was at safe and optimum levels, then why did the government mandate the levels be lowered in 2011?

Because we get unregulated amounts of fluoride from OTHER sources above and beyond the optimal level that is in fluoridated water, which I listed, and you, as usual, did not read.

THOSE OTHER SOURCES CAN HAVE HIGHER AMOUNTS OF FLUORIDE IN THEM THAN PROPERLY FLUORIDATED MUNICIPAL WATER AND ARE CONSUMED IN LARGER QUANTITIES WHICH CREATES A HIGHER DOSAGE.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

but it's been proven HARMFUL and EXCESSIVE to those children and people who are already getting enough fluoride from other sources

No, excessive fluoride can be harmful (just like excessive aspirin), but it isn't due to properly fluoridated municipal water......

USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected
Beverages and Foods, Release 2

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf
​

This database was created through a collaborative effort between the Nutrient Data Laboratory, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC), USDA, ARS, and​

• University of Minnesota, Nutrition Coordinating Center(NCC)​
• University of Iowa, College of Dentistry​
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Food Analysis Laboratory Control Center​
• National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA​
• Food Composition and Methods Development Laboratory, BHNRC, USDA, ARS​

Supported by the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research and the National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.​

One more thing........

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

so again, link something from Fluoridealert.org that has been PROVEN false or stfu

http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/
​

1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.

​

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have regulatory responsibility for public water supplies; that is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency. To my knowledge FDA has made no statements regarding approving substances added to water - I don't know why we would since it is not our area of responsibility. With regard to your question about whether the Agency has made statements about the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, I would say only that we have approved fluoride containing products, dentifrices and mouthrinses, for the prevention of caries."

John V. (Jake) Kelsey, DDS, MBA, Dental Team Leader
Division of Dermatologic and Dental Drug Products (HFD-540)
Food and Drug Administration
(301) 827-2020; (301) 827-2075 (fax); kelseyj@cder.fda.gov

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

so again, link something from Fluoridealert.org that has been PROVEN false or stfu

13) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing their entire lives in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface, and less than 1% of the 100+ tooth surfaces available in a child’s mouth. Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004). None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of the teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Komarek 2005). A one-year delay in eruption of the permanent teeth would eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.

ORLY?​

http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/06/experts-condemn-anti-fluoride-claims.html​

Australia's leading dental researcher Professor John Spencer from Adelaide University joins with other dental health authorities in dismissing recent claims by an American anti-fluoridationist that he says totally misinterprets Australian research into dental decay.

According to the Area Health Service's Oral Health Project Manager, John Irving, the claims against water fluoridation not only take statements out of context, but also make false claims.

"Anyone bothering to check the evidence would soon discover the statement by Paul Connett from the United States that Australian research by Armfield and Spencer (2004) showed no benefit from water fluoridation was absolutely wrong," he said.

Professor John Spencer, internationally recognised as this country's leading oral health researcher and who is head of the Australian Research Centre on Population Oral Health (ARCPOH) at Adelaide University is dismayed his research is being used this way.

"Dr Connett misrepresents the study as an analysis of the benefits of water fluoridation which it was not. He also misinterprets the study's indirect evidence on the benefits of water fluoridation on decay," Professor Spencer said .

"This is the sort of misrepresentation or misinterpretation that earned the condemnation of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Centre (NHMRC) in 1991.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I would go through all 50, but are you noticing a pattern yet? Dude is a liar that misrepresents, data-mines and obfuscates information in order to scare you.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Here's two-for-one.......​

31) Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma). A U.S. government-funded animal study found a dose-dependent increase in bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in fluoride-treated, male rats (NTP 1990). Following the results of this study, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed national cancer data in the U.S. and found a significantly higher rate of osteosarcoma (a bone cancer) in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover et al 1991a). While the NCI concluded (based on an analysis lacking statistical power) that fluoridation was not the cause (Hoover et al 1991b), no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found osteosarcoma rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies of varying size and quality have failed to find this relationship (a summary of these can be found in Bassin, 2001 and Connett & Neurath, 2005). There are three reasons why a fluoride-osteosarcoma connection is plausible: First, fluoride accumulates to a high level in bone. Second, fluoride stimulates bone growth. And, third, fluoride can interfere with the genetic apparatus of bone cells in several ways; it has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage, and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in both cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993; Mihashi 1996; Zhang 2009). In addition to cell and tissue studies, a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans has also been reported (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997; Joseph 2000).

32) Proponents have failed to refute the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. In 2001, Elise Bassin, a dentist, successfully defended her doctoral thesis at Harvard in which she found that young boys had a five-to-seven fold increased risk of getting osteosarcoma by the age of 20 if they drank fluoridated water during their mid-childhood growth spurt (age 6 to 8). The study was published in 2006 (Bassin 2006) but has been largely discounted by fluoridating countries because her thesis adviser Professor Chester Douglass (a promoter of fluoridation and a consultant for Colgate) promised a larger study that he claimed would discount her thesis (Douglass and Joshipura, 2006). Now, after 5 years of waiting the Douglass study has finally been published (Kim 2011) but in no way does this study discount Bassin’s findings. The study, which used far fewer controls than Bassin’s analysis, did not even attempt to assess the age-specific window of risk that Bassin identified. Indeed, by the authors’ own admission, the study had no capacity to assess the risk of osteosarcoma among children and adolescents (the precise population of concern). For a critique of the Douglass study, click here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22189446
​

Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents.

April 2012

Levy M, Leclerc BS.
Source
Institut national de santé publique du Québec, chemin Sainte-Marie, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada. michel.levy@inspq.qc.ca

Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
It has been suggested that fluoride in drinking water may increase the risk of osteosarcoma in children and adolescents, although the evidence is inconclusive. We investigated the association between community water fluoridation (CWF) and osteosarcoma in childhood and adolescence in the continental U.S.

METHODS:
We used the cumulative osteosarcoma incidence rate data from the CDC Wonder database for 1999-2006, categorized by age group, sex and states. States were categorized as low (≤30%) or high (≥85%) according to the percentage of the population receiving CWF between 1992 and 2006. Confidence intervals for the incidence rates were calculated using the Gamma distribution and the incidence rates were compared between groups using Poisson regression models.

RESULTS:
We found no sex-specific statistical differences in the national incidence rates in the younger groups (5-9, 10-14), although 15-19 males were at higher risk to osteosarcoma than females in the same age group (p<0.001). Sex and age group specific incidence rates were similar in both CWF state categories. The higher incidence rates among 15-19 year old males vs females was not associated with the state fluoridation status. We also compared sex and age specific osteosarcoma incidence rates cumulated from 1973 to 2007 from the SEER 9 Cancer Registries for single age groups from 5 to 19. There were no statistical differences between sexes for 5-14 year old children although incidence rates for single age groups for 15-19 year old males were significantly higher than for females.

CONCLUSION:
Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence.

​

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

This is one of the most one-sided "debates" I have ever read here.

 

[OsO]

No, Fluoridealaert and 'Dr. Whyte' are lying and the CDC, ADA, FDA, AMA, and WHO amongst other organizations along with 80 years of science on the matter all state the same things he said in the video.

You fail.​

there is not a consensus on water fluoridation in the scientific community, you're delusional.

Because we get unregulated amounts of fluoride from OTHER sources above and beyond the optimal level that is in fluoridated water, which I listed, and you, as usual, did not read.

THOSE OTHER SOURCES CAN HAVE HIGHER AMOUNTS OF FLUORIDE IN THEM THAN PROPERLY FLUORIDATED MUNICIPAL WATER AND ARE CONSUMED IN LARGER QUANTITIES WHICH CREATES A HIGHER DOSAGE.​

the extra fluoride we are getting from other sources MAKES the current water fluoridation levels too high, and i dont understand why you cant see that.

the whole point of this thread is that water fluoridation is unnecessary at best, and harmful at worst. i just also happen to be very skeptical of the repeated ingestion of water treated with sodium fluoride, especially sodium fluoride generated from waste products (if that's true). i also think its illogical to add fluoride to water that people mostly drink, when to protect tooth enamel fluoride is best applied externally to the teeth. plus im very concerned about how fluoride is retained in the body. what is the average amount of fluoride a person gets from fluoridated water? how long does it take the body and kidneys to detoxify from that? not even talking about the fact we shouldnt have to "detoxify" from drinking our water. we should be able to drink water all day long with no problems. water in its pure state has no adverse health effects.

but i think the more obvious point is that anyone who brushes their teeth gets enough fluoride to protect their teeth, and anybody NOT able to brush their teeth probably doesn't have the resources to have a home with fluoridated water anyway. plus the benefit to those with fluoridated water is imo negligible.

then there's the cost to the taxpayer. do you know what we could do with an extra 300 million dollars?

then there's the fact that at minimum there are 40 million people walking around with stained teeth because of excessive fluoride. now, would these people still have developed dental fluorosis if there were no fluoride in the water? possibly. but we dont know for sure. what we DO know is that water fluoridated at levels of 1.2ppm played a part in 40 million people with stained teeth. and i'd venture to say that it was a pretty significant part considering people are exposed to sodium fluoride in a multiple times a day and in a multitude of ways.

plus, the government already lowered the fluoride levels only TWO years ago, a clear indicator that the fluoride being added to the water supply is NOT at optimum levels. if it were at optimum levels, the levels wouldn't have been lowered. thats about as straight forward as it gets.

i even found this on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre), depending on climate.[6]

Also from wiki:
"Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources. Drinking water is typically the largest source;[12]"

"...in contrast, most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay without its use, primarily due to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s.[3] The use of topical fluorides (such as in toothpaste) to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries may help supplant the need for fluoridated water.[3]"

"Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.[12] About 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body. In infants 80–90% of absorbed fluoride is retained, with the rest excreted, mostly via urine; in adults about 60% is retained. About 99% of retained fluoride is stored in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich areas, where excess quantities can cause fluorosis.[49] Drinking water is typically the largest source of fluoride.[12]"

and despite all this there is not a doubt in your mind about water fluoridation being a good thing.

the biology of belief ladies and gentlemen...

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

there is not a consensus on water fluoridation in the scientific community, you're delusional.

.....

National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay

Academy of Dentistry International
Academy of General Dentistry
Academy for Sports Dentistry
Alzheimer’s Association
America’s Health Insurance Plans
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
American Academy of Periodontology
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American Association for Community Dental Programs
American Association for Dental Research
American Association for Health Education
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Endodontists
American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
American Association of Orthodontists
American Association of Public Health Dentistry
American Association of Women Dentists
American Cancer Society
American College of Dentists
American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine
American College of Preventive Medicine
American College of Prosthodontists
American Council on Science and Health
American Dental Assistants Association
American Dental Association
American Dental Education Association
American Dental Hygienists’ Association
American Dietetic Association
American Federation of Labor and Congress
of Industrial Organizations
American Hospital Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Pharmacists Association
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American Society for Clinical Nutrition
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
American Student Dental Association
American Water Works Association
Association for Academic Health Centers
Association of American Medical Colleges
Association of Clinicians for the Underserved
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Association of State and Territorial Public Health
Nutrition Directors
British Fluoridation Society
Canadian Dental Association
Canadian Dental Hygienists Association
Canadian Medical Association
Canadian Nurses Association
Canadian Paediatric Society
Canadian Public Health Association
Child Welfare League of America
Children’s Dental Health Project
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
Consumer Federation of America
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Delta Dental Plans Association
FDI World Dental Federation
Federation of American Hospitals
Hispanic Dental Association
Indian Dental Association (U.S.A.)
Institute of Medicine
International Association for Dental Research
International Association for Orthodontics
International College of Dentists
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
National Association of Community Health Centers
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Dental Assistants
National Association of Local Boards of Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Confectioners Association
National Dental Assistants Association
National Dental Association
National Dental Hygienists’ Association
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
National Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
National Head Start Association
National Health Law Program
National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
Oral Health America
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Society for Public Health Education
Society of American Indian Dentists
Special Care Dentistry
Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities
American Association of Hospital Dentists
American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
The Children’s Health Fund
The Dental Health Foundation (of California)
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
U.S. Public Health Service
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
World Federation of Orthodontists
World Health Organization​

Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute this Fluoridation Facts Compendium in its entirety, without modification. To request any other copyright permission please contact the American Dental Association at 312-440-2879.

the extra fluoride we are getting from other sources MAKES the current water fluoridation levels too high

No, you still don't understand. The other sources make the TOTAL dosage too high. You are under no duress to drink fluoridated water. Here's a list of non-fluoridated water you can easily buy.......

A
A Better Water
Agromas Natural Mineral Water
Albertsons
Alhambra
Alpina
American Fare
American Star
Appco
Aqua Fresca
Aqua Panna
Aqua Pure
Aquarius Natural Mineral Water
Arbor Springs Drinking Water
Arbor Springs Purified Water
Arbor Springs Spring Water
Arlington Springs
Aqua Systems
Aqua Von
Arrowhead
Artesian Wells Distilled Water
Artesain Wells Drinking Water
Artesian Wells Infant Water
Augusta Medical - Daniels
B
Badger Water
Belmont Springs
Besco Pure Premium Drinking Water
BIOTA Colorado Pure Spring Water
Bio-2
Black Berry Farms
Blue Ice Natural Mineral Water
Boney's
BORNEO Drinking Water
BORNEO Natural Mineral Water
Bountyland
Buches

C
Calistoga
Callaway Blue
CAPA
Cascade Bottled Water
Cascade Distilled Water
Cascade Purified Drinking Water
Century Springs Distilled Water
Century Springs Spring Water
Chemung Distilled Water
Chemung Spring Water
Chippewa Spring Water
Citi Stop
Classic Selection
Clearly Arctic
Clear Mountain Spring Water
Clover Company Limited
Coach
Cold Country
Cohutta Mountain Spring Water
Cowboy Squeeze
Crowne Plaza Drinking Water
Crowne Plaza Natural Mineral Water
Cruel Jacks Spring Water
Crystal Mountain Spring Water
Crystal Point
Crystal Ridge
Crystal Spring Natural Spring Water
Crystal Springs
Crystal Springs Drinking Water
Crystal Springs Deionized Water
Crystal Springs Spring Water
Culligan Water
Culligan Demineralized Water
Culligan Distilled Water
Culligan Purified Water
Culligan Spring Water

D
Dakota Splash
Dannon
Dannon Fluoridated Spring Water
Deep Rock
Deep Rock Crystal Drop
Deep Rock Fontenelle
Deer Park
Deja Blue
Desert Quench
Diamond Spring Water

E
East Phils
Eco Quest
Elite
Equatorial Natural Mineral Water
Eureka
Evian
E Water

F
Family Pantry
Famous Ramona Water
Flowing Springs
Food Club
Founders Square Bank
Fresh Brands Artesian
Fresh Brands Distilled Water
Fresh Brands Drinking Water
Fresh Market
G
Get-N-Go
Glacier Bay
Glen Summit Springs Water
Glen Summit Distilled Water
Glenwood Inglewood
Gordon Food Service
Great Bear
H
Harvey's
H2O4U
Henry's
Hidden Valley Natural Mineral Water
Hillcrest Distilled Water
Hillcrest Drinking Water
Hillcrest Spring Water
Hilton PJ Natural Mineral Water
Hinckley Springs
HINT
Hi-Sprint Drinking Water
Hi-Sprint Natural Mineral Water
Hog Wash
Hon Less Natural Mineral Water
I
Ice Jam
Ice Mountain
Ice Mountain Natural Mineral Water
Inland
Istana Natural Mineral Water
J
Joe Muggs
Joe Ragan's Pure Water
Junior Johnson
Just Squeezed

K
Kandiyohi Drinking Water
Kentwood Springs
KLGCC Natural Mineral Water
Krystal J Artesian Water
Krystal J Distilled Water
L
Laure
Leroy Jenkins Ministries
Logansport Savings Bank
Lowe's
M
Martins
Masafi Pure Natural Mineral Water
Mayer Bros.
Mercurio Produce
Mesra Drinking Water
Mesra Natural Mineral Water
Misty Mountain
Monadnock Mountain Spring Water
Montclair
Mountain Energy
Mountain Forest
Mountain Valley Spring Water
Mount Olympus Spring
Mutiara Natural Mineral Water

N
Nantze Springs
Nestle Pure Life
New Frontier Bank
Niagra Mist
Nicolet Distilled
Northern Illinois University
Nursery

O
Oasis Pure Drinking Water
Oasis Sparkling Water
Ogallala - Clear Cool Water
OUI Drinking Water
OUI Natural Mineral Water
Ozarka

P
Paiges
Parmer Pure H2O
Patriots Choice
Pelangi Natural Mineral Water
Penta Ultra Premium Purified Drinking Water
Perrier
Piggly Wiggly
Poland Spring
Polaris Water
Pristine Natural Artesian
Purely Sedona
Puritan Springs Distilled Water

Q
Quick Stop
R
Rain Soft
Refresh Natural Mineral Water
Reiser Drinking Water
Request Foods, Inc.
Rip Time
S
Safeway - Refreshe
Sam's Wine & Spirits
San Faustino Natural Mineral Water
San Pellegrino
Santee Springs
Scheopner's Water
Sequoia Springs
Scotts
Shamrock
Shenandoah Distilled Water
Shenandoah Pure Drinking Water
Shenandoah Spring Water
Shop-N-Cart
Shur-Fine
Sierra Springs
Silver Creek Purified Water
Silver Creek Spring Water
Sky Drinking Water
Snow Valley
Sparkletts
Spinx
Stator Bros. Markets
Summit Mountain
Summit Springs
Summit Valley
T
T-Rex
Teton Mountain Lodge Spring Water
Tweetsie
U
United Dairy Farmers
V
Valutime
Veta Drinking Water
Volvic
W
Walgreen's Drinking Water
Wal-Mart
Wal-mart Kids Connection
Water Boy
Weis Markets Spring Water
Western Family
Whistler Water
Whole Foods 365
Woodland Spring Water
Wyoming Machinery "Catipillar" Spring Water
Z
Zephyrhills
Zodiac



When you come across some evidence that proves that properly fluoridated water is toxic/poisonous/dangerous, then you might have an argument worth posting. As it stands now, you're scared of nothing.​

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

she's lucky she isn't in Yemen

 

[rapbeats]

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

She tells me that her mom has to sign a form allowing it at the beginning of each school year. She also says that the school tells the kids that if they take the pill that their parents should not allow them to use fluoride toothpaste. They claim to give it to the kids for their teeth.

well then the school is doing it right. they are saying if we give your kid the supplment. dont go and give them the toothpaste too. you will have a fluoride overdose so to speak.

 

[OsO]

.....

National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay ​

​

water fluoridation has both positive and negative aspects. we're not debating the benefits, we are debating the negative effects.

No, you still don't understand. The other sources make the TOTAL dosage too high. You are under no duress to drink fluoridated water. Here's a list of non-fluoridated water you can easily buy.......

why are you only holding the other sources of fluoride accountable when it comes to total dosages being too high and NO accountability to the fluoride we're putting in the water? thats not logical.

read the part again where it says we get most of our fluoride from the publicly fluoridated water. do you think if we eliminated water fluoridation that society would then fall into the safe range for fluoride consumption? id say thats a safe bet.

When you come across some evidence that proves that properly fluoridated water is toxic/poisonous/dangerous, then you might have an argument worth posting. As it stands now, you're scared of nothing.

this is about water fluoridation being outdated, unnecessary, and even harmful if one is getting adequate amounts of fluoride from other sources. please stop saying irrelevant shyt and take a crack at answering the rest of my points.

the extra fluoride we are getting from other sources MAKES the current water fluoridation levels too high, and i dont understand why you cant see that.

the whole point of this thread is that water fluoridation is unnecessary at best, and harmful at worst. i just also happen to be very skeptical of the repeated ingestion of water treated with sodium fluoride, especially sodium fluoride generated from waste products (if that's true). i also think its illogical to add fluoride to water that people mostly drink, when to protect tooth enamel fluoride is best applied externally to the teeth. plus im very concerned about how fluoride is retained in the body. what is the average amount of fluoride a person gets from fluoridated water? how long does it take the body and kidneys to detoxify from that? not even talking about the fact we shouldnt have to "detoxify" from drinking our water. we should be able to drink water all day long with no problems. water in its pure state has no adverse health effects.

but i think the more obvious point is that anyone who brushes their teeth gets enough fluoride to protect their teeth, and anybody NOT able to brush their teeth probably doesn't have the resources to have a home with fluoridated water anyway. plus the benefit to those with fluoridated water is imo negligible.

then there's the cost to the taxpayer. do you know what we could do with an extra 300 million dollars?

then there's the fact that at minimum there are 40 million people walking around with stained teeth because of excessive fluoride. now, would these people still have developed dental fluorosis if there were no fluoride in the water? possibly. but we dont know for sure. what we DO know is that water fluoridated at levels of 1.2ppm played a part in 40 million people with stained teeth. and i'd venture to say that it was a pretty significant part considering people are exposed to sodium fluoride multiple times a day and in a multitude of ways.

plus, the government already lowered the fluoride levels only TWO years ago, a clear indicator that the fluoride being added to the water supply is NOT at optimum levels. if it were at optimum levels, the levels wouldn't have been lowered. thats about as straight forward as it gets.

i even found this on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre), depending on climate.[6]

Also from wiki:
"Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources. Drinking water is typically the largest source;[12]"

"...in contrast, most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay without its use, primarily due to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s.[3] The use of topical fluorides (such as in toothpaste) to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries may help supplant the need for fluoridated water.[3]"

"Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.[12] About 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body. In infants 80–90% of absorbed fluoride is retained, with the rest excreted, mostly via urine; in adults about 60% is retained. About 99% of retained fluoride is stored in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich areas, where excess quantities can cause fluorosis.[49] Drinking water is typically the largest source of fluoride.[12]"

and despite all this there is not a doubt in your mind about water fluoridation being a good thing.

or maybe we should just do one at a time.

let's start here:

the government already lowered the fluoride levels only TWO years ago, a clear indicator that the fluoride being added to the water supply is NOT at optimum levels. if it were at optimum levels, the levels wouldn't have been lowered.

can you speak to this? why do you think the government lowered water fluoridation levels? if there were no evidence that it were harmful and no doubt as to its great benefits then why lower the amount being put into water after 60+ years of "successful" application?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

water fluoridation has both positive and negative aspects. we're not debating the benefits, we are debating the negative effects.​

Proper water fluoridation ONLY has positive effects. Excessive fluoride intake has ONLY negative effects. The two are not equivalent.

why are you only holding the other sources of fluoride accountable when it comes to total dosages being too high and NO accountability to the fluoride we're putting in the water? thats not logical.

Your thinking makes no sense. If I take a Tylenol, I know how much I took. If someone gives me a drink/food with crushed-up Tylenol in it, I have no idea how much more I just ingested. You're blaming me for taking an adequate dose and not accounting for the person sneaking me additional Tylenol without my knowledge that would exceed what I know I need. That's why your whole argument is hypocritical and fallacious.​

read the part again where it says we get most of our fluoride from the publicly fluoridated water. do you think if we eliminated water fluoridation that society would then fall into the safe range for fluoride consumption? id say thats a safe bet.

No, because that is only a very small percentage of the population. For instance, my state only has 14% water fluoridation coverage. Residents of my town can tell those who aren't from here by the condition of their teeth since we've been fluoridated for about 30 years. Cavities are rare/non-existent for us, not for them.​

this is about water fluoridation being outdated, unnecessary, and even harmful

Were that the case, then we'd have NO issue with dental caries/cavities. That, however, is not the case. Fluoridation is necessary and beneficial to eliminating that as history and thousands of studies have shown. There is no evidence that properly fluoridated water is harmful. The only evidence you have is that excessive fluoride causes fluorosis which is a cosmetic issue in the US and not serious.

Cavities >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluorosis​

can you speak to this?

Stop asking the same question over and over when it's been answered. All your 'points' are immaterial and only point to excessive fluoride intake, not proper fluoridation.

Copy and paste more meaningless walls-of-text instead of providing any evidence for your argument, brehs.

Rely on information provided by liars to support your argument, brehs.

​