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

[OsO]

Proper water fluoridation ONLY has positive effects.​

​

"proper" water fluoridation does not have positive effects if people are getting too much fluoride form other sources. and at current count a minimum of 40 million people are not receiving positive effects from "proper" water fluoridation. so your statement is incorrect.

Excessive fluoride intake has ONLY negative effects.

and again, 40 million people are receiving excessive fluoride because they are getting too much fluoride from too many sources, water fluoridation being the number one source of fluoride. keep digging that hole though

​

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.​

public water fluoridation is the aspect we have control over. we ADD fluoride to public water supplies, so it's only logical that would be the easiest practice to reverse.

especially when you take into account our largest fluoride intake is from the water we drink, the most LOGICAL conclusion is that we minimize public water fluoridation instead of trying to control or minimize the fluoride coming from other sources... ESPECIALLY when the average person already gets enough fluoride to protect their teeth from brushing, making the benefits of water fluoridation negligible.

the bottom line is too many people are exposed to too much fluoride... 40 million at the minimum... so wouldnt it make more sense to limit water fluoridation since 1) thats the largest source of fluoride ingestion 2) its the aspect we have the most control over and 3) water fluoridation doesn't seem to come with overwhelming benefits? cmon sun this isnt rocket science...

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.​

​

i think it's safe to say that 90%+ of people affected by fluorosis and other diseases associated with excessive fluoride intake are in areas with public water fluoridation.

and your personal example is anecdotal, but ultimately insignificant

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.​

​

anyone brushing their teeth gets more than enough fluoride to protect their teeth.

and the fact you think brown stains on the teeth is not a serious issue, especially for one of the best health accomplishments of the 20th century just means you a nasty MF'er

​

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.

​

you're an embarrassment with your inability to address the key issues.

the federal government lowering fluoride levels as a matter of public policy is a clear indicator that fluoride levels were too high... and the fact you cant admit that further reaffirms your intellectual dishonesty.

public water fluoridation in combination with other fluoride sources has clearly led to "excessive fluoride intake" in your words, for several million americans. so there's nothing to debate.

again, the biology of belief ladies and gentlemen.

and dont you still believe in the infallibility of the bible? nikka your opinion is NOT valid... please play the trust game, and fall back.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

"proper" water fluoridation does not have positive effects if people are getting too much fluoride form other sources. and at current count a minimum of 40 million people are not receiving positive effects from "proper" water fluoridation. so your statement is incorrect.

People receive ONLY positive results from proper water fluoridation. There is no evidence to the contrary. ALL the evidence you have provided only points to EXCESSIVE fluoride consumption from OTHER SOURCES causing any issues​

and again, 40 million people are receiving excessive fluoride because they are getting too much fluoride from too many sources, water fluoridation being the number one source of fluoride. keep digging that hole though

40 million people have mild fluorosis, 280 million have NEVER had a cavity including that 40 million. You fail.
​

public water fluoridation is the aspect we have control over. we ADD fluoride to public water supplies, so it's only logical that would be the easiest practice to reverse.

Once again, you don't HAVE to drink fluoridated water. You are more than able to BUY non-fluoridated water in order to control your fluoride intake. In most cases, the naturally occurring fluoride in municipal water is actually LOWERED, not added-to. Your point is moot.​

especially when you take into account our largest fluoride intake is from the water we drink, the most LOGICAL conclusion is that we minimize public water fluoridation instead of trying to control or minimize the fluoride coming from other sources... ESPECIALLY when the average person already gets enough fluoride to protect their teeth from brushing, making the benefits of water fluoridation negligible.

No, actually the largest fluoride intake varies according to temperature and location. As I stated earlier, my state only has 14% coverage, the remaining 86% do not.​

the bottom line is too many people are exposed to too much fluoride[/B]... 40 million at the minimum... so wouldnt it make more sense to limit water fluoridation since 1) thats the largest source of fluoride ingestion 2) its the aspect we have the most control over and 3) water fluoridation doesn't seem to come with overwhelming benefits? cmon sun this isnt rocket science...

The bottom line is there are about 317,000,000 people in the United States. 40 million have mild fluorosis. That's 12% of the population that have a mild cosmetic issue due to OTHER SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. If you think that preventing cavities is not a benefit, then you really have no argument.

​

i think it's safe to say that 90%+ of people affected by fluorosis and other diseases associated with excessive fluoride intake are in areas with public water fluoridation.

No one in the United States has any disease associated with excessive fluoride aside from fluorosis. Your point is moot.​

and your personal example is anecdotal, but ultimately insignificant

Good thing I actually have evidence that IS statistically significant, while you have nothing.....​

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm
​

This report documents improvements in the oral health of the civilian, U.S. population. The report documented important differences in disease prevalence and severity by sociodemographic characteristics that public health officers, the dental profession, and the community should consider in implementing interventions to prevent and control disease and to reduce the disparities observed. The following is a list of seven important findings in this report:

• The decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries in permanent teeth, reported in previous national surveys, continued during 1988--1994 and 1999--2002. This decline has occurred in both crowns and roots, across sex, race/ethnicity, poverty status, education level, and smoking status. It has benefited children, adolescents, and adults.
• A notable proportion of untreated tooth decay was observed across all age groups and sociodemographic characteristics.
• No reductions were observed in the prevalence and severity of dental caries in primary teeth.
• The use of dental sealants among children and adolescents increased substantially. This increase was probably the result of both public and private efforts and denotes a continuing interest in using dental sealants for the prevention of tooth decay.
• Older adults are retaining more of their teeth and fewer are losing all their teeth.
• Despite the decrease in caries prevalence and severity in the permanent dentition and the increase in the proportion of children and adolescents who benefit from dental sealants, disparities remain. Racial/ethnic minorities, those with lower income, lower education level, and current smokers across all age groups have larger unmet needs compared with their counterparts.
• Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980. This increase should be evaluated in the context of total fluoride exposure.

Recommendations for Public Health Action

1. Appropriate public health interventions to prevent dental caries should extend to all age groups and sociodemographic categories.
2. Factors related to the lack of reduction of dental caries in primary teeth need to be studied.
3. As the U.S. population ages and more adults keep their natural teeth, preventive interventions are needed for these age groups at the individual, clinical, and community level.
4. Programs designed to promote oral health (e.g., dental sealants and smoking cessation programs) should include interventions designed to reduce disparities in racial/ethnic minorities, lower income, lower education level, and current smokers.
5. Timely surveillance tools are needed to monitor fluoride exposure from multiple sources.

​

anyone brushing their teeth gets more than enough fluoride to protect their teeth.

According to the actual evidence I posted above, that's not true.​

and the fact you think brown stains on the teeth is not a serious issue, especially for one of the best health accomplishments of the 20th century just means you a nasty MF'er

The fact that you don't know what fluorosis actually looks like means your argument fails. It actually looks like this......

The white markings are the prevalent form of fluorosis found in the vast majority of those with the condition in the United States. Less than 2% of all fluorosis cases would be termed 'severe' among those aged 6-39 years old. That's about 800,000 people across the entire country which works out to less than .01% of the total population. To put that number in-perspective, you'd have a higher chance of being struck by lightning while simultaneously winning the Powerball Lottery and giving birth to quadruplets than seeing someone with severe fluorosis in America. All calculations are from this report from 2010......

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

Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999 - 2004

​

you're an embarrassment with your inability to address the key issues.

You have no key issues to address and are just embarrassing yourself.​

the federal government lowering fluoride levels as a matter of public policy is a clear indicator that fluoride levels were too high...

The levels in properly fluoridated water weren't too high, there are more sources of fluoride prevalent in society now and with the advent of air-conditioning, water-intake is more or less equivalent in all States since 1962.
​

public water fluoridation in combination with other fluoride sources has clearly led to "excessive fluoride intake" in your words, for several million americans.

You've shot your argument in the foot, again..........​

and dont you still believe in the infallibility of the bible? nikka your opinion is NOT valid... please play the trust game, and fall back.

Umm, no. I'm a theological noncognitivist and have been for about 20 years. You might wanna look that up as it falsifies your claim. And calling my opinion invalid when you believe humans can live just on sunlight and Liquid-Life Energy™ is like a skunk telling a rose it smells bad.



Now, your argument is not only fully debunked, but the fact that you have resorted to logical fallacies (ad hominems, argumentum ad nauseams, slippery slopes, straw men and a couple others) as opposed to providing ANY evidence to support your position really shows you have no argument worth debating.​

 

[OsO]

People receive ONLY positive results from proper water fluoridation. There is no evidence to the contrary. ALL the evidence you have provided only points to EXCESSIVE fluoride consumption from OTHER SOURCES causing any issues​

​

40 million people have mild fluorosis, 280 million have NEVER had a cavity including that 40 million. You fail.
​

Once again, you don't HAVE to drink fluoridated water. You are more than able to BUY non-fluoridated water in order to control your fluoride intake. In most cases, the naturally occurring fluoride in municipal water is actually LOWERED, not added-to. Your point is moot.​

No, actually the largest fluoride intake varies according to temperature and location. As I stated earlier, my state only has 14% coverage, the remaining 86% do not.​

The bottom line is there are about 317,000,000 people in the United States. 40 million have mild fluorosis. That's 12% of the population that have a mild cosmetic issue due to OTHER SOURCES OF FLUORIDE. If you think that preventing cavities is not a benefit, then you really have no argument.

​

No one in the United States has any disease associated with excessive fluoride aside from fluorosis. Your point is moot.​

Good thing I actually have evidence that IS statistically significant, while you have nothing.....​

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm
​

According to the actual evidence I posted above, that's not true.​

The fact that you don't know what fluorosis actually looks like means your argument fails. It actually looks like this......

The white markings are the prevalent form of fluorosis found in the vast majority of those with the condition in the United States. Less than 2% of all fluorosis cases would be termed 'severe' among those aged 6-39 years old. That's about 800,000 people across the entire country which works out to less than .01% of the total population. To put that number in-perspective, you'd have a higher chance of being struck by lightning while simultaneously winning the Powerball Lottery and giving birth to quadruplets than seeing someone with severe fluorosis in America. All calculations are from this report from 2010......

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

Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999 - 2004

​

You have no key issues to address and are just embarrassing yourself.​

The levels in properly fluoridated water weren't too high, there are more sources of fluoride prevalent in society now and with the advent of air-conditioning, water-intake is more or less equivalent in all States since 1962.
​

You've shot your argument in the foot, again..........​

Umm, no. I'm a theological noncognitivist and have been for about 20 years. You might wanna look that up as it falsifies your claim. And calling my opinion invalid when you believe humans can live just on sunlight and Liquid-Life Energy™ is like a skunk telling a rose it smells bad.



Now, your argument is not only fully debunked, but the fact that you have resorted to logical fallacies (ad hominems, argumentum ad nauseams, slippery slopes, straw men and a couple others) as opposed to providing ANY evidence to support your position really shows you have no argument worth debating.​

1) people in areas with water fluoridation get most of their fluoride intake from... water fluoridation. for you to answer my statement with "it varies by temperature and region" is factually correct in a vacuum, but actually addresses a totally different point from the one im talking about. i am talking about where people in areas with fluoridated water get most of their fluoride intake from, and you're talking about how the recommended levels of fluoride vary by region.

2) your assertion about NO ONE in the united states having issues more serious than dental fluorosis as a result of water fluoridation is completely false. skeletal fluorosis and even cases of physiological damage have been reported where individuals in the US consumed too much fluoride. and yes, water fluoridation + other sources of fluoride can = too much fluoride intake.

3) your comment on dental fluorosis just confirms what i already thought, that you a nasty MF'er. brown stains on people's teeth is not acceptable and i cant believe i have to even explain that.

i find it sad that one of the "greatest health accomplishments of the 20th century" that is supposed to protect people's teeth, has a side affect of leaving millions of people with brown stained teeth.

it's also hilarious how you claim all cases of excessive fluoride intake is solely the fault of "other" sources of fluoride, with no accountability to the fluoride added in the water. thats ignorant and intellectually dishonest. you cant look at the causes of something, but omit the largest cause because it doesn't fit with your argument. water fluoridation plays a big part in people receiving too much fluoride, period. stop denying reality.

the reason european countries are fluoridating things like salt and food instead of water now is precisely because we have increased the fluoride we are getting from other sources, therefore it is no longer as necessary to put fluoride in the water as it once may have been. it's an outdated policy that may have been beneficial 40-50 years ago, but has since outlived its usefulness, as evidenced by the government lowering the levels a couple years ago.

your entire argument boils down to this:

People receive ONLY positive results from proper water fluoridation. There is no evidence to the contrary. ALL the evidence you have provided only points to EXCESSIVE fluoride consumption from OTHER SOURCES causing any issues​

​

and i just want you to take into consideration that what we THINK of as "proper water fluoridation" might not be proper because off all the other sources we get fluoride from in 2013.

at the minimum brown stains on people's teeth is not acceptable collateral damage for water fluoridation.

also, the existence of dental fluorosis itself is proof positive that, at the MINIMUM, there are individuals who ARE ABSORBING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE. a clear, factual rebuttal to your earlier position of proper water fluoridation causing no harm.




at the end of the day you're denying the truth, saying you dont have a problem with your teeth being stained because you dont want to admit that some people in the US are getting too much fluoride, because that would destroy your argument about properly fluoridated water... and anyone with any intelligence can see that.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1) people in areas with water fluoridation get most of their fluoride intake from... water fluoridation. for you to answer my statement with "it varies by temperature and region" is factually correct in a vacuum, but actually addresses a totally different point from the one im talking about. i am talking about where people in areas with fluoridated water get most of their fluoride intake from, and you're talking about how the recommended levels of fluoride vary by region.

You have to look at it by region because that's how fluoridation is regulated. Also, just because someone lives in a fluoridated community, they are under no obligation to use fluoridated water.​

2) your assertion about NO ONE in the united states having issues more serious than dental fluorosis as a result of water fluoridation is completely false. skeletal fluorosis and even cases of physiological damage have been reported where individuals in the US consumed too much fluoride. and yes, water fluoridation + other sources of fluoride can = too much fluoride intake.

There have been NO cases of skeletal fluorosis or physiological damage caused by properly fluoridated water in the United States. You're lying just like those sites you quote.​

3) your comment on dental fluorosis just confirms what i already thought, that you a nasty MF'er. brown stains on people's teeth is not acceptable and i cant believe i have to even explain that.

You obviously didn't see the pic since the cases of fluorosis in the US are white discolorations, not brown, and don't occur in this country. Please, use more ad hominems instead of actual evidence to support your 'argument'.​

i find it sad that one of the "greatest health accomplishments of the 20th century" that is supposed to protect people's teeth, has a side affect of leaving millions of people with brown stained teeth.

The health accomplishment was the reduction in cavities. Even the ones in India and China with severe fluorosis (which doesn't happen here because our water is properly fluoridated) are highly resistant to cavities.​

it's also hilarious how you claim all cases of excessive fluoride intake is solely the fault of "other" sources of fluoride, with no accountability to the fluoride added in the water. thats ignorant and intellectually dishonest. you cant look at the causes of something, but omit the largest cause because it doesn't fit with your argument. water fluoridation plays a big part in people receiving too much fluoride, period. stop denying reality.

You're claiming that excessive fluoride intake is SOLELY the fault of water fluoridation when we KNOW the amount in water DOES NOT CAUSE IT. The 'largest' portion of my argument has been justified by 60+ years of research and thousands of studies all over the world. Your 'argument' is based on fear, lies, deliberate obfuscation of facts and a healthy dose of paranoia.

the reason european countries are fluoridating things like salt and food instead of water now is precisely because we have increased the fluoride we are getting from other sources, therefore it is no longer as necessary to put fluoride in the water as it once may have been. it's an outdated policy that may have been beneficial 40-50 years ago, but has since outlived its usefulness, as evidenced by the government lowering the levels a couple years ago.

Wrong. The reason European countries aren't fluoridating their water is because the initial investment required to create processing facilities/delivery infrastructures is prohibitive.
​

and i just want you to take into consideration that what we THINK of as "proper water fluoridation" might not be proper because off all the other sources we get fluoride from in 2013.

It is proper since it has been studied for over half a century and been found to pose no issues. What isn't is the amount we get from OTHER SOURCES that aren't regulated.​

at the minimum brown stains on people's teeth is not acceptable collateral damage for water fluoridation.

Then your issue is with people in China and India since that's where those cases are, not here in the US, and not because of properly fluoridated water.​

also, the existence of dental fluorosis itself is proof positive that, at the MINIMUM, there are individuals who ARE ABSORBING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE. a clear, factual rebuttal to your earlier position of proper water fluoridation causing no harm.

Fluorosis isn't 'harmful' and you've rebutted nothing. It's a cosmetic issue that can be corrected in the US. The fluorosis cases in India and China (brown, pitted teeth and skeletal malformations) are due to excessive fluoride intake from a combination of high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water and other sources. Those here who are absorbing too much fluoride need to know how much they get in the food/beverages they consume since they KNOW how much is in their water if it is properly fluoridated.​

at the end of the day you're denying the truth,

Yet another claim you have no evidence to support......​

saying you dont have a problem with your teeth being stained because you dont want to admit that some people in the US are getting too much fluoride,

I don't have a problem with it because 99.99% of the cases aren't noticeable unless you're a dentist doing an exam here in the United States.​

because that would destroy your argument about properly fluoridated water... and anyone with any intelligence can see that.

I already linked you the other sources of fluoride that are the issue. You've said absolutely nothing to refute anything I've posted. Your argument lacks evidence, research and intelligence.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm not going to provide any more evidence until this guy does. In the meantime, let's see what he's really trying to do.....​

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory:

In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!
(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

"Shotgun argumentation" is a metaphor from real life: It's much easier to hunt a rabbit with a shotgun than with a rifle. This is because a rifle only fires one bullet and there's a high probability of a miss. A shotgun, however, fires tens or even hundreds of small pellets, and the probability of at least one of them hitting the rabbit is quite high.

Shotgun argumentation has the same basic idea: The more small arguments or "evidence" you present in favor of some claim, the higher the probability that someone will believe you regardless of how ridiculous those arguments are. There are two reasons for this:

Firstly, just the sheer amount of arguments or "evidence" may be enough to convince someone that something strange is going on. The idea is basically: "There is this much evidence against the official story, there must be something wrong with it." One or two pieces of "evidence" may not be enough to convince anyone, but collect a set of a couple of hundreds of pieces of "evidence" and it immediately starts being more believable.

Of course the fallacy here is that the amount of "evidence" is in no way proof of anything. The vast majority, and usually all of this "evidence" is easily explainable and just patently false. There may be a few points which may be more difficult to explain, but they alone wouldn't be so convincing.

Secondly, and more closely related to the shotgun metaphor: The more arguments or individual pieces of "evidence" you have, the higher the probability that at least some of them will convince someone. Someone might not get convinced by most of the arguments, but among them there may be one or a few which sounds so plausible to him that he is then convinced. Thus one or a few of the "pellets" hit the "rabbit" and killed it: Mission accomplished.

I have a concrete example of this: I had a friend who is academically educated, a MSc, and doing research work (relating to computer science) at a university. He is rational, intelligent and well-educated.

Yet still this person, at least some years ago, completely believed the Moon hoax theory. Why? He said to me quite explicitly that there was one thing that convinced him: The flag moving after it had been planted on the ground.

One of the pellets had hit the rabbit and killed it. The shotgun argumentation had been successful.

If even highly-educated academic people can fall for such "evidence" (which is easily explained), how more easily are more "regular" people going to believe the sheer amount of them? Sadly, quite a lot more easily.

Most conspiracy theorists continue to present the same old tired arguments which are very easy to prove wrong. They need all those arguments, no matter how ridiculous, for their shotgun argumentation tactics to work.

 

[OsO]

breh, let it go.

you refuse to acknowledge public water fluoridation as a contributor to cases of excessive fluoride intake, which is ridiculous considering as humans the largest source of fluoride we consume IS fluoridated water (in areas with public water fluoridation). that in itself is completely illogical.

second you refuse to admit that the government lowering the fluoride levels in water in 2011 had anything to do with the fluoride levels in the water being too high instead you assert they lowered the levels because the fluoride levels from outside sources was too high. which also may be true, but still doesnt discount the idea that BOTH may be too high. but iyo it can't be both that are too high because that would mean the public water fluoridation levels are too high, which would in turn destroy your argument.


and despite all the people, countries, and health professionals worldwide who question public water fluoridation, there is not a doubt in your mind it is 100% safe at its current level. and despite the fact the water fluoridation levels were lowered only 2 years ago, it's not even possible in your mind that water fluoridation levels could still be too high. which again, is illogical.

you seem to have supreme confidence but do you even know the rate at which the kidney gets rid of fluoride? do you even know how much fluoride you are ingesting on a daily basis? is water fluoridation safe at the same levels for ALL people, despite their unique physiologies? you don't have definitive answers to these questions. no ones does. and thats the point.

AND you think stained teeth is an acceptable side effect

breh just read this.. it's probably the most comprehensive outline of the public water fluoridation controversy.

http://www.slweb.org/hileman.html

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

A bunch of nonsense and no proof or evidence of anything.

​

 

[OsO]

​

lol but you still didnt address the issue.

we'll keep it simple... if the government lowered the amount of fluoride being put into the water in 2011 (from .7-1.2ppm to <.7ppm), that means there was a period of time prior to 2011 where we were not fluoridating our water at the optimum levels, correct?

cmon funkdoc, have some intellectual integrity.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

lol but you still didnt address the issue.

There is no issue to address that I haven't already.

All your arguments have been thoroughly refuted with empirical evidence.

Most conspiracy theorists continue to present the same old tired arguments which are very easy to prove wrong. They need all those arguments, no matter how ridiculous, for their shotgun argumentation tactics to work.

​

 

[OsO]

we'll keep it simple... if the government lowered the amount of fluoride being put into the water in 2011 (from .7-1.2ppm to <.7ppm), that means there was a period of time prior to 2011 where we were not fluoridating our water at the optimum levels, correct?

cmon funkdoc, have some intellectual integrity.

 

[Blackking]

it's already proven that the levels were too high at one point.

Realistically, some nations don't have it because it's not necessary.... most modern nation reject it, so why don't we??

 

[OsO]

it's already proven that the levels were too high at one point.

he refuses to admit it because it would destroy his argument.

Realistically, some nations don't have it because it's not necessary.... most modern nation reject it, so why don't we??

i think the US will come around eventually, and I think the lowering of the levels in 2011 is a signal of that.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

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

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

BACKGROUND:

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.

Bu-bu-bu-but the Gov't lowered the amount of fluoride in the water because it was too high.........
​