-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Fluoride in Drinking Water
- Thread starter Zeronix
- Start date
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Not to be too mean, but there's a reason for the existence of the DSM-IV: people with similar mental...ummm... "eccentricities" are going to share a spectrum of common traits. They will all seem very similar at first glance. I don't think that this is that VOICE123 character. He seemed to have had serious impulse control problems, that would probably prevent him from hiding his identity very well.Th1sWasATriumph said:
Th1sWasATriumph
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
True, iamtheVOICE couldn't write very well. This one seems to know words even if he presses them into dark purposes.
But there've been a couple of users recently who got banned and then came back under other names - sometimes on the same day - so when someone markedly similar arrives after a banning, I get suspicious.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Shhhhh! Don't reveal anything about the conspiracy!Moky said:
Th1sWasATriumph
New Member
Moky said:
I just haven't asked the webhamster or admin to check yet.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
No, you are banned! Hah!Zeronix said:
Th1sWasATriumph
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
I don't think he is. I didn't, and according to logs no-one else did as well - we were happy to leave him as a lulzfactory. Presumably he just took the graphic and used it as an avatar, which frankly is warnable again.
Sigh. Why do some people just not take their lumps and move on?
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Masochism? The fact that being beaten up on makes them feel like a victim of a conspiracy, which confirms in their minds that there IS a conspiracy?Th1sWasATriumph said:
JacobEvans
New Member
Hahahaha wasn't this the conspiracy in Dr. Strangelove? That general was always talking about how it destroys his precious fluids, which turn out to be his sperm count.
"Estimates prepared by the Canadian Environmental Health Directorate in 1992 of fluoride ingestion for various routes of exposure may have been the data presented to the authors. These show that total fluoride ingested from ambient air, food, soil, and drinking water by the 7 month-4 year age group (average weight 13 kg) in ugm fluoride/kg bw/day is 67.25-100.42 in "fluoridated" areas and 25.41-36.42 in "non-fluoridated" areas. Estimates of the fluoride ingestion from twice daily use of fluoride dentifrice presented in the Environmental Health study is, for the same age group, 20-60 ugm/kg/day This compares to 18.5-43.1 ugm fluoride/kg bw/day m the report under review. Using the upper range (43.1) for this age group, total fluoride ingestion, including dentifrice, in ugm/kg bw/day is 143.52 in "fluoridated" and 79.52 in "non-fluoridated" groups. Use of fluoride supplements (1993 recommendation) by the latter would increase the fluoride intake by a further 15.8 ugm/kg bw/day for a possible total of 95.31 ugm/kg bw/day. If these calculations are correct, total fluoride intake for this important age group exceeds the recommended standard of 81 ugm/kg bw/day in both "fluoridated" and ''non-fluoridated" groups."
-http://www.fluoridation.com/caries3.htm
"Systemic F-exposure to children has increased. Mild dental fluorosis is now more common than one would predict on the basis of Dean's findings in the late 1930s and early 1940s: in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. Several recent studies report prevalence rates in the 20 and 80 percent range in areas with fluoridated water."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford.
-http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tells us that 2/3 of Americans receive fluoridated tap water. Virtually 100% eat and drink a fluoridated food supply.
Dental fluorosis is known to frequently cause malformation of teeth, even in its most mild form. With dental fluorosis prevalence at 20-80% in areas with fluoridated water; it is apparent that water fluoridation does more harm than good.
Suppose that artificial water fluoridation really does prevent cavities (It doesn't- http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg7.php3); dental fluorosis is so prevalent in fluoridated areas that the malformation of teeth would cost 50 times more to treat than a single cavity would. A cavity costs approximately $100 to treat, while as braces cost roughly $5000 (excluding maintenance). You would have to develop 50 cavities to equal the cost of braces, development of 50 cavities would require some extreme malnutrition, as well as a lack of basic vitamins.
Experts agree : "In fact, dental fluorosis has gotten so bad that some dental experts, such as Dr. Hardy Limeback,say that it costs more to repair teeth damaged by fluoride than would have been saved if water fluoridation actually reduced tooth decay."
-In 2004, one dentist charged $18,000 to cover a 16-year-olds white-laced fluoride-damaged teeth with veneers and caps.
Some may argue that if artificial water fluoridation was not beneficial to the healthiness of teeth; no one would endorse it. However, this artificial fluoridation 'discovery' was based off a weak and unreliable study in the 1940's . This study found a dental benefit from adding calcium fluoride (natural fluoride) to water, with this information they constructed artificial fluoride (out of an industrial by-product waste) and hypothesized that if natural fluoride (with calcium) is beneficial to the healthiness of teeth; then artificial fluoride (without calcium) should be too. Recent studies have not been able to replicate the results, simply because they were using a completely different substance. The compound in natural fluoride that was able to reduce cavities was calcium, not fluoride. Calcium is now accepted by most dentists as a necessity for healthy teeth. :
"Calcium and vitamin D are important for strengthening your bones and teeth, particularly as you age. "
http://www.sedationdentistrycolorado.com/dentist/
In fact, artificial fluoridation is actually more harmful to teeth than beneficial. Numerous studies have shown that cavity rates increase after fluoride is added to water, and decrease when fluoride is removed.:
"cavity rates doubled after water fluoridation began in Kentucky "
http://www.astdd.org/bestpractices/pdf/DES20001KYfluoridationsurveillance.pdf
"In New York State, cavities and tooth loss are greater in fluoridated rather than in non-fluoridated counties. In fact, tooth decay crises exist in most, if not all, large fluoridated U.S. cities."
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3
"In 1988, Hong Kong reduced water fluoride levels from 0.7 parts per million (ppm) to 0.5 ppm. By 1995, 31% fewer 11-year-olds had cavities with a 42% reduction in average cavity rates, according to the Hong Kong Public Health Bulletin. Similar reductions occurred in 1978 when Hong Kong's fluoridation rates were first cut from 1 ppm to 0.7 ppm."
"In fact, non-water-fluoridated Finland, Sweden and Holland cut tooth decay rates by 92%, 82% and 72% respectively over the past 20 years. While in the super-fluoride saturated U.S., public health dentists only managed to cut rates by 50% over the same period (since 1984)."
ect.
-http://www.fluoridation.com/caries3.htm
"Systemic F-exposure to children has increased. Mild dental fluorosis is now more common than one would predict on the basis of Dean's findings in the late 1930s and early 1940s: in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. Several recent studies report prevalence rates in the 20 and 80 percent range in areas with fluoridated water."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford.
-http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tells us that 2/3 of Americans receive fluoridated tap water. Virtually 100% eat and drink a fluoridated food supply.
Dental fluorosis is known to frequently cause malformation of teeth, even in its most mild form. With dental fluorosis prevalence at 20-80% in areas with fluoridated water; it is apparent that water fluoridation does more harm than good.
Suppose that artificial water fluoridation really does prevent cavities (It doesn't- http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg7.php3); dental fluorosis is so prevalent in fluoridated areas that the malformation of teeth would cost 50 times more to treat than a single cavity would. A cavity costs approximately $100 to treat, while as braces cost roughly $5000 (excluding maintenance). You would have to develop 50 cavities to equal the cost of braces, development of 50 cavities would require some extreme malnutrition, as well as a lack of basic vitamins.
Experts agree
: "In fact, dental fluorosis has gotten so bad that some dental experts, such as Dr. Hardy Limeback,say that it costs more to repair teeth damaged by fluoride than would have been saved if water fluoridation actually reduced tooth decay."-In 2004, one dentist charged $18,000 to cover a 16-year-olds white-laced fluoride-damaged teeth with veneers and caps.
Some may argue that if artificial water fluoridation was not beneficial to the healthiness of teeth; no one would endorse it. However, this artificial fluoridation 'discovery' was based off a weak and unreliable study in the 1940's . This study found a dental benefit from adding calcium fluoride (natural fluoride) to water, with this information they constructed artificial fluoride (out of an industrial by-product waste) and hypothesized that if natural fluoride (with calcium) is beneficial to the healthiness of teeth; then artificial fluoride (without calcium) should be too. Recent studies have not been able to replicate the results, simply because they were using a completely different substance. The compound in natural fluoride that was able to reduce cavities was calcium, not fluoride. Calcium is now accepted by most dentists as a necessity for healthy teeth. :
"Calcium and vitamin D are important for strengthening your bones and teeth, particularly as you age. "
http://www.sedationdentistrycolorado.com/dentist/
In fact, artificial fluoridation is actually more harmful to teeth than beneficial. Numerous studies have shown that cavity rates increase after fluoride is added to water, and decrease when fluoride is removed.:
"cavity rates doubled after water fluoridation began in Kentucky "
http://www.astdd.org/bestpractices/pdf/DES20001KYfluoridationsurveillance.pdf
"In New York State, cavities and tooth loss are greater in fluoridated rather than in non-fluoridated counties. In fact, tooth decay crises exist in most, if not all, large fluoridated U.S. cities."
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3
"In 1988, Hong Kong reduced water fluoride levels from 0.7 parts per million (ppm) to 0.5 ppm. By 1995, 31% fewer 11-year-olds had cavities with a 42% reduction in average cavity rates, according to the Hong Kong Public Health Bulletin. Similar reductions occurred in 1978 when Hong Kong's fluoridation rates were first cut from 1 ppm to 0.7 ppm."
"In fact, non-water-fluoridated Finland, Sweden and Holland cut tooth decay rates by 92%, 82% and 72% respectively over the past 20 years. While in the super-fluoride saturated U.S., public health dentists only managed to cut rates by 50% over the same period (since 1984)."
ect.
ebbixx
New Member
darthrender2010 said:
At least in the US that is the term commonly used within dentistry, though rarely used in speaking to patients. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_caries
"Caries" applies to the overall process of tooth decay, as distinct from individual cavities.
Ozymandyus
New Member
Let's be honest here - the fluorosis that the level of fluoride in the water supply causes is almost NEVER fixed, and almost never noticeable at all. To claim it would cost more to fix such things is retarded - in its worst form it is still an aesthetic problem, and its worst form is caused by much higher levels than we are talking about. Fluorosis doesn't make your teeth fall out, or cause infection, etc etc. Mild fluorosis, which is what we are talking about here, is barely Noticeable by anyone other than a dentist.
As for fluoride preventing cavities.... Your sources are consistently biased, and I see no good science or studies cited - they are cherry picking a few cases and they are by no means representative.
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/reprint/129/11/1579
http://jdr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/86/5/410
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/abs/4801410a.html
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7265/855
One of these is a review of most of the available studies on this topic: 214 studies were included.
"Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was 5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth."
So a survey of over 200 studies concluded you are on average 14.6% more likely to have no cavities, and on average you will have 2.25 More teeth with cavities in areas without water fluoridation.
As for statements like people in Kentucky with fluoridated water got 2x as many cavities as those without - that is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the data listed in that link.
The Link you used to support it says this: "Fluoridation of public water supplies has been shown to be a highly effective dental caries prevention technology. The CDC has listed water fluoridation as one of the evidence-based and effective prevention methodologies. With 90% of the population (3.6 million citizens) exposed to fluoridated water, this practice can be considered as having high impact, nearly universal applicability, and offers benefits to the oral health of all who are exposed including children, adults, and elders."
You are being Completely misleading and dishonest with your quoting - acting like that quote supported your claim about fluoride Causing cavities. The only links that support your claims are from this Orgsites.com which is CLEARLY terribly biased and is not at all scientific.
As for fluoride preventing cavities.... Your sources are consistently biased, and I see no good science or studies cited - they are cherry picking a few cases and they are by no means representative.
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/reprint/129/11/1579
http://jdr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/86/5/410
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/abs/4801410a.html
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7265/855
One of these is a review of most of the available studies on this topic: 214 studies were included.
"Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was 5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth."
So a survey of over 200 studies concluded you are on average 14.6% more likely to have no cavities, and on average you will have 2.25 More teeth with cavities in areas without water fluoridation.
As for statements like people in Kentucky with fluoridated water got 2x as many cavities as those without - that is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the data listed in that link.
The Link you used to support it says this: "Fluoridation of public water supplies has been shown to be a highly effective dental caries prevention technology. The CDC has listed water fluoridation as one of the evidence-based and effective prevention methodologies. With 90% of the population (3.6 million citizens) exposed to fluoridated water, this practice can be considered as having high impact, nearly universal applicability, and offers benefits to the oral health of all who are exposed including children, adults, and elders."
You are being Completely misleading and dishonest with your quoting - acting like that quote supported your claim about fluoride Causing cavities. The only links that support your claims are from this Orgsites.com which is CLEARLY terribly biased and is not at all scientific.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Yes, he is. Every step of the way has been an exercise in identifying which way he was lying, and now that we know that everything he says is a lie, it has gotten much easier.Ozymandyus said:
In this case... I grew up drinking fluoridated water and gargling with mouthwash and whatever. I have mild fluorosis. My teeth won't bleach easily. I've also never had a cavity in my life. Trust me, the trade-off is more than worth it. Comparing what I have to teeth falling out and breaking off? Just another lie.
darthrender2010
New Member
Timmybhoy said:
lol, I feel retarded
No, to claim that dental fluorosis is just a benign tooth discoloration is retarted. It begins as a tooth discoloration, it can then be manifested into rotten and pitted teeth.
If a child has been exposed to fluoride since they were born, chances are they are ingesting too much. 1ppm may be a safe dosage for adults who weigh over 100 pounds, but when infants and children are ingesting the same amount of fluoride that adults are; and during a vital period of teeth formation, it is extremely likely that they will develop malformed teeth, and when you have malformed teeth, you will most likely be prescribed braces.
I also have dental fluorosis, a mild form. I have slight areas of discoloration and I was recommended braces when I was younger, the dentist hypothesized that because I was exposed to such high levels of fluoride when my teeth were developing; they had been slightly malformed and discolored in areas. To assume that drinking fluoridated water when you were growing up is the unequivocal cause of your cavity free teeth is just silly. You probably didn't develop any cavities because you brushed your teeth everyday, and had a healthy and consistent calcium intake.