Fluoride?

Japanese Knives - by Tokushu Knife
Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Dave Martell

Dave Martell

Forum Founder
Founding Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
14,272
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Airville, PA
What do you guys make of fluoride? US residents have had this stuff poured down our throats our entire lives being told that it's good for us, but is it really?


[video=youtube;Q3y8uwtxrHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo[/video]


[video=youtube;7hW0_UMtsb4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hW0_UMtsb4&feature=relmfu[/video]


[video=youtube;5NFOnQQMnx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=5NFOnQQMnx4[/video]
 
Dave Martell said:
Truth isn't a conspiracy theory :)
Click to expand...

the truth is that fluoride at the levels added to drinking water is very safe for the vast majority of people and has a substantial and demonstrable protective effect on teeth.
 
Water fluoridation does decrease cavities in children (I forget the exact number, but it's not negligible), but the amount that is currently allowed to be in drinking water is too high. Right now fluoride is allowed to be at 4mg/L in the United States while the WHO recommends 1.5mg/L: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

Edipis: "Very safe for the vast majority of people" isn't a particularly comforting phrase. I'd go with what the WHO recommends.
 
I'm glad the water in Hawaii is fluoride free. If I lived anywhere else I'd have a pretty substantial water filtration system to get that **** out.
 
Andrew H said:
Water fluoridation does decrease cavities in children (I forget the exact number, but it's not negligible), but the amount that is currently allowed to be in drinking water is too high. Right now fluoride is allowed to be at 4mg/L in the United States while the WHO recommends 1.5mg/L: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

Edipis: "Very safe for the vast majority of people" isn't a particularly comforting phrase. I'd go with what the WHO recommends.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I use flourinated rinses and floss. Getting flouride this way has been shown to be much more effective than via drinking water.
 
I've been told my entire life that Fluoride is needed for the good health of my teeth. I've paid for fluoride treatments during dentist visits and I've consumed city water that contains fluoride in the hopes of making the most of what fluoride has to offer.

Then I had my first child, she has very bad decayed tooth problems, which led me to research what was happening to her. For he first few years of life we were living in a house that uses well water exclusively, we were advised to mix formula (which we used as a breast milk supplement) with a special fluoride enriched water to help the baby's teeth (which she didn't even have at the time). We did as we were told and then as she began to move away from breastmilk and formula we were advised to continue using the fluoride enriched water to cut her juice that she was starting to drink off and on. Again we did as we were told. Then she almost instantly developed large dark circles on her front top teeth - almost overnight this happened. We took her to the dentist and were told that she had baby bottle tooth decay. We assumed that we had exposed her to too much juice and formula and that we hadn't cleaned her gums/teeth enough and blamed ourselves. She needed to have all of her front top row teeth surgically ground down (in a hospital under anesthesia) and caps installed - this killed us to watch.

After a few years we moved and then had a 2nd child who did not have this happen to (although she too has some similar damage that occurred from a fall) - poor girl. We assumed that we were now doing things better than we did with our first child but truthfully we were doing things the same with the exception of now using bottled water for mixing of the formula.

So now another couple of years go by and we're still trying to figure out why this happened to our oldest daughter but still assuming it was our fault somehow. Then a discovery is made, we hear that the CDC & ADA have just released an advisory article warning parents to not give flouride containing water to babies....

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis.""
Click to expand...

We dug a little deeper into what "enamel fluorosis" is and guess what we found? Yup, that's exactly what our daughter has/had.

So the argument could be made for the exposure level being at play here and the fact the she was a baby (etc) and I would agree that this had a role in this situation. However my view on fluoride is that what sense is there to ingest a known poison, industrial waste, just for the sake of better teeth? Even if there is some benefit to the teeth why would we ingest the poison, why not swish it around and spit it out like we do with toothpaste containing fluoride? Also, if there is nothing to this then why are so many other countries removing or have banned fluoride from their drinking water?

I don't know, it's all too fishy and stinks a bit too much for me but I'm curious what you guys think about this?
 
Take the red pill and go down the rabbit hole.

[video=youtube;m9vuGFUEX5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9vuGFUEX5g[/video]

There's a lot of conspiracy stuff about flouride (such as mind control in Russia), but there are also some very real facts, as Dave has found out. Bottom line is there is no need for flouride to be in our drinking water. It's an old, out of date, good-ol'-politcian idea that dates back to a time when governments were trying to figure out what was "best" for the poeple, but they really didn't know what they were - or are - doing.
 
EdipisReks said:
unfortunately, it's as comforting as reality gets.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that indicate a problem? I think you just agreed with me. If reality isn't comforting, let's change it.
 
I'd rather have water in my water. Tap water tastes like crap. I am raising my children to know good food, because my desire for quality of taste has led me to eat a healthful diet of basic, nourishing things.

I drank flouridated tap water my entire childhood, drank about a quart of low-quality Borden milk a day as a kid, brush twice daily, listerine before bed, don't eat a lot of junk foods, and have about $15k in dental work I need done. So I have a lot of respect left for the ADA's advice.

Ultimately, there is no need for Flouride in my water, because when I drink water, it is because I am thirsty. I do not like to multi-task.
 
Andrew H said:
Doesn't that indicate a problem? I think you just agreed with me. If reality isn't comforting, let's change it.
Click to expand...

no, i didn't agree with you. to quote the master, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
 
I'm not sure I should get involved in this discussion.
But, Edipis is correct. The reality of not only medicine, but of life, is there is always inherent risk. I assure you, that if you knew the true risks of everything in the medical field, you would never visit a doctor. I would rather have bypass surgery on my kitchen table than in an OR, as it is far cleaner, with fewer chemical resistant bacteria. Why do you think we have you sign consent forms stating that you won't hold us responsible for the inherent risks associated with your procedures.There is even risk associated with taking vitamins, antibiotics, and even seeing a phlebotomist.

But here is the key...

The benefits outweigh the risks almost always. Those who are in authority do not have the pleasure of helping or maintaining the health of every person on an individual basis, as it is simply not feasible. So, instead they make broad judgments based on what research findings have shown, that they feel will benefit most people, most of the time, while offering the least risk, again most of the time.

I am not uplifting this policy, as it is obviously flawed, but it is the reality of how decisions are made.

Regards,
Chris
 
I'm not saying that we need to switch to a method that is risk free, but rather try to make the water we drink have less risk. Look at some countries in Europe; France, Norway and Germany do not fluoridate their water at all, England only fluoridates 10% of their supply.
Forty percent of kids age 12-15 have dental fluorosis in America (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf). That's a problem. There's a reason why the EPA and the department of HHS want to reduce the concentration of fluoride in water to 0.7mg/L.
 
Andrew H said:
Water fluoridation does decrease cavities in children (I forget the exact number, but it's not negligible), but the amount that is currently allowed to be in drinking water is too high. Right now fluoride is allowed to be at 4mg/L in the United States while the WHO recommends 1.5mg/L: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

Edipis: "Very safe for the vast majority of people" isn't a particularly comforting phrase. I'd go with what the WHO recommends.
Click to expand...


Fluoridation is the act of artificially adding fluoride to a substance, whether drinking water, food, or etc. You are correct about he WHO recommending 1.5mg/L, but it is important to understand why these numbers are in place. This is exactly what I was discussing in my previous post. The WHO (WORLD is the key word), makes recommendations based on what they feel are the benefits and risks across the world. The EPA in this case is a better indicator for the US. Currently, the EPA has 2 guidelines for water fluoridation
1) 4 mg/L, which is the enforceable EPA MCLG standard for serious health effects. Meaning that no serious health effects are likely to occur at said levels.
2) 2mg/L MCLG standard, which is the secondary and not enforceable fluoridation limit. Past this level there is some occurence of "cosmetic" dental fluorosis.

The second standard, as well as the WHO standard, is based on the fact that there are natural sources of fluoride that occur, which are not included in this fluoridation limit. So, when considering geographical regions where large amounts of granite and gneiss appear, causing increased natural fluoride "contamination", it is safer for an organization such as the WHO to recommend a lower MCLG. In the US, this happens quite a lot in California and the Great Lakes area. Children living in these areas are most likely to suffer from dental fluorosis.

My point here is that we should all be careful with numbers and statistics.....

Regards,
Chris
 
By the way Dave, I really hate that happened to your daughter. Were you living in California or New York at the time?
 
+1 to both of Chris's posts. From a public health perspective, fluouridized water is considered one of the major successes in public health because the overall benefits by far outweigh any negative consequences. And in Hawaii they also tried to get it through several times but the local government is just too stubborn ;) Unfortunately, relying on individuals to do everything that would be good prevention strategies only works in a few selected areas - and dental health is not one of them.

Stefan
 
let me start with a bit of an introduction ,. i saw my first patient, as a dental student, this month in 1976 and since then have spent a good portion of my day, 5-6 days a week, with my fingers in someone elses mouth.
imho this discussion is best divided into parts.
first .. fluoride. it works and it works wonders. look at todays 20-30somethings they have virtually no decay and the only dental injection they ever had was for wisdom tooth removal. now look at my generation ..basically all the molars of everyone of us babyboomers have fillings crowns or are missing. in 36 yrs i have seen two of my generation with a full set of unrestored teeth ,, they were both french and grew up poor on the brittany coast. you have no idea the disaster a decay prone no fl set of primary teeth is.
second.. fluorosis.. from too much flouroide.. why .. too many sources and lack of supervision. fluoride in the water in the vitamins and in the toothpaste . a child shoud have a pea sized amt of toothpaste parents put too much on , kids put way too much on and they spit but they don't rinse.. and tooth paste tastes good to kids you would be surprised how many toothpaste tube suckers there are.
third.. conspiracy theories are exactly that. . i have heard them all . poison from the govt ,from the russians ,it causes cancer or hangnails what have you.. the guy that started them in the 60's was seriously slapped in court serveral years ago
what now..... the problem is....... the more well off give their childern fluoridated vitamins and use fl toothpaste .. properly used this works well .. those who dont get fl due to income, social issues ect are then doomed..... so the fluoride stays in the water for them [but they probably drink soda instead of tap water anyway]. so if you take it out of the water the poor and undereducated will suffer. it is up to the public health experts, social engineers and politians to figure this one out.
In closing . fluoridated water did work and was a good idea at one time.
appologies to anyone offended
lcb
 
cwrightthruya said:
Fluoridation is the act of artificially adding fluoride to a substance, whether drinking water, food, or etc. You are correct about he WHO recommending 1.5mg/L, but it is important to understand why these numbers are in place. This is exactly what I was discussing in my previous post. The WHO (WORLD is the key word), makes recommendations based on what they feel are the benefits and risks across the world. The EPA in this case is a better indicator for the US. Currently, the EPA has 2 guidelines for water fluoridation
1) 4 mg/L, which is the enforceable EPA MCLG standard for serious health effects. Meaning that no serious health effects are likely to occur at said levels.
2) 2mg/L MCLG standard, which is the secondary and not enforceable fluoridation limit. Past this level there is some occurence of "cosmetic" dental fluorosis.

The second standard, as well as the WHO standard, is based on the fact that there are natural sources of fluoride that occur, which are not included in this fluoridation limit. So, when considering geographical regions where large amounts of granite and gneiss appear, causing increased natural fluoride "contamination", it is safer for an organization such as the WHO to recommend a lower MCLG. In the US, this happens quite a lot in California and the Great Lakes area. Children living in these areas are most likely to suffer from dental fluorosis.

My point here is that we should all be careful with numbers and statistics.....

Regards,
Chris
Click to expand...

Very nice post, Chris. Still, no matter how you slice the statistics I posted, the WHO, the EPA and the department of HHS all recommend a lowering of our MCLG standard.
 
dont know if it is googleable ? what? but the original research was done by H. Trendly Dean [or Deane] and was about Colorado brown stain [fluorosis here to for unknow] . he identified Fl as the cause .. and also noted the negligable decay rate . his reseasrch led to fl in the water .. and if you are old enough... the teaneck [sp] NJ studies so often quoted in the ads for crest with stannous fl .. which is not used in children any more do to the yellowing of the teeth guess who has yellow teeth from it?
thanks for your thoughtful accurate and informative posts .
lcb
 
Here inPuddle town we have never had fluoridation, and it is now being proposed. The concentration being proposed is .8 mg/L, well below the problem levels being sited. It is causing something of a chit storm (dodging the censors) to say the least. The kids in the rich neighborhoods have good teeth and the poor ones don't, so someone says it is unnecessary as it is the parents responsibility, negating their argument as far as I am concerned.
It seems to me that the whole thing comes down to concentrations, the anti people cite the ill effects that come from too much, ignoring the benefits that come from appropriate levels.
I get my dental work from the VA and at 63 years of age have been having some cavities. My provider gives me fluoride tooth paste.
 
I have a IEPA class C water operator license,so water is my thing.I feel there is enough in the tooth paste that there really is no need for it in the water.Also every one is drinking bottle water these day.One more thing if any of you seen a fluoride room you would 100% not want to consume any quantity.
 
Singapore has been providing potable tap water with a 0.6mg/l level of fluoride (constantly reduced over the years in line with modern research) since 1957. I drink water straight from the tap, as do many people here. Reviewed the levels years ago, seems fine and within the threshold that many bottled water manufacturers use as guidelines.

There are tests and statistics that review the impact of fluorosis on the general population, and the benefits still outweight the risks in the minds of our decision makers.

Not everyone brushes twice daily, and few floss daily - regardless of social status/class hence the broad application of a simple preventative.

4mg/l seems ridiculously high though. Seems America is providing what has been shown to be a good solution, just that they are heavy handed and not keeping up with the latest recommended levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top