U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-13-2013, 12:11 PM
 
4,985 posts, read 5,068,834 times
Reputation: 6324

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
You really do not understand how scientific studies are done, do you? Studies are done in specific populations in order to evaluate the effect of an intervention in that specific population. Statistical methods are then used to control for other factors that might affect the outcome. So lets look at a study in a Medicaid population.

Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation Under Contemporary Conditions

The study looked at over 600,000 children under age 21 living in 57 counties in NY and NYC who had at least one claim for a dental procedure. They compared children living in counties with fluoridation to those who did not.
Speaking of large numbers, I think I'll repeat myself here. There is no major difference between dental health in NY and NJ. Despite the fact that only 14% of NJ residents drink fluoridated water, dental health in NJ is somewhat better than that in NY (>70% of public water if fluoridated) and only a few % points less than in CT (where >90% water is fluoridated), which is amazing considering all those ghettos and fresh immigrants NJ accommodates.

Browse State Ranking and US Data Maps--Data Resource Center

Quote:
Why study Medicaid recipients?

An advantage of using Medicaid recipients is that the population served is homogeneous. It is highly unlikely that the diets and other potential confounding factors of the kids in fluoridated areas differ from the kids in areas without fluoride.
What's much more likely is that urban fluoridated counties have more dentists, more income, more free/subsidized clinics, more access to preventative care than rural counties with well water. Considering transient nature of population of the wage nomads, studies of counties are almost meaningless anyway. An older person on medicaid was bouncing around the country/state whole his life.

Quote:
"Compared with the predominantly fluoridated counties, the mean number of restorative, endodontic, and extraction procedures per recipient was 33.4% higher in less fluoridated counties. The mean number of claims per child for caries-related services was inversely correlated with the extent of fluoridation in a county (Spearman's correlation coefficient = −0.54, p<0.0001), but claims for non-caries related services were not."
Studies claim that all the alleged differences are due to fluorides in water and thus they are not worth paper they are printed on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2013, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,440 posts, read 28,306,241 times
Reputation: 29041
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Speaking of large numbers, I think I'll repeat myself here. There is no major difference between dental health in NY and NJ. Despite the fact that only 14% of NJ residents drink fluoridated water, dental health in NJ is somewhat better than that in NY (>70% of public water if fluoridated) and only a few % points less than in CT (where >90% water is fluoridated), which is amazing considering all those ghettos and fresh immigrants NJ accommodates.

Browse State Ranking and US Data Maps--Data Resource Center
You realize you are talking about a telephone survey, don't you? Those have really big problems now that many families do not have land lines. Also, instead of just asking a vague question about "dental heath", what we need to know is cavities.

How about if we just look at kids with cavities, since what fluoride does is prevent cavities:

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/gisdoh/child.aspx

Gee whiz, New Jersey chooses not to report data for any age group. Wonder why?

Sorry, but the cumulative evidence over seven decades where actual cavities were evaluated trumps your telephone survey.

Ghettos? Fresh immigrants? Really?

Quote:
What's much more likely is that urban fluoridated counties have more dentists, more income, more free/subsidized clinics, more access to preventative care than rural counties with well water. Considering transient nature of population of the wage nomads, studies of counties are almost meaningless anyway. An older person on medicaid was bouncing around the country/state whole his life.

Studies claim that all the alleged differences are due to fluorides in water and thus they are not worth paper they are printed on.
But the studies on fluoride include all comers, though for some reason you think that studying subsets is somehow more valuable.

Sure, there will be more dentists in urban areas. There are more people there. People in rural counties will go to urban areas to see dentists.

Wage nomads? Who is "An older person on medicaid ... " ?

Whatever reservations you have about fluoride, trying to say it is ineffective does not work. It does prevent cavities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 01:35 PM
 
9,211 posts, read 9,286,664 times
Reputation: 28880
Quote:
More importantly, as I have said before the fact remains the public is being medicated without their will or consent. Vaccines are another supposed good thing but many have chosen not to vaccinate. Should they be forced to vaccinate?
Of course not no matter what anyone thinks. Should the public be medicated with fluorides without their consent or knowledge? Of course not!
IMO, vaccination should be required for all children attending public schools. Drop the "personal exemption" allowance. Every kid who is not allergic must be vaccinated or he/she cannot attend public school.

Of course, the public consents to fluoridation. Its only a small vocal minority that opposes it. Any city with a fluoridated water supply has a mayor and a council who stand for regular elections. These officials can be defeated for re-election if the citizens oppose any action they take. All you need to do is organize those hordes of people who don't want fluoridated water and vote the current officials out of office.

It ought to be easy to do if, as you say, "the public is being medicated with fluoride without their consent".

What I object to is the small vocal minority who opposes fluoridation having their way. If they don't like it they can move to another community without fluoridation or buy a filtration system for their own home. The point is that a minority shouldn't be able to keep the rest of us from getting what is good for our teeth without having to go to the store or the dentist.

A city should not kow tow to a bunch of paranoid people who have no science on their side.

Last edited by markg91359; 10-13-2013 at 01:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 02:44 PM
 
4,985 posts, read 5,068,834 times
Reputation: 6324
Quote:
You realize you are talking about a telephone survey, don't you? Those have really big problems now that many families do not have land lines. Also, instead of just asking a vague question about "dental heath", what we need to know is cavities.
How about if we just look at kids with cavities, since what fluoride does is prevent cavities:
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/gisdoh/child.aspx
Let's look.
Data from several sources are presented in Oral Health Maps. The Adult indicators come from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The Child indicators come from state oral health screenings for states that choose to provide the results of their surveys.

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the world's largest, on-going telephone health survey system
States conduct statewide oral health screenings using protocols comparable to the Basic Screening Survey (BSS) protocol developed in cooperation with the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (ASTDD). Most states screen 3rd grade students.


You realize you are talking mostly about telephone surveys, don't you?
Quote:
Gee whiz, New Jersey chooses not to report data for any age group. Wonder why?
There are plenty of survey data on oral health of New Jersey residents, including data in your link. New Jersey doesn't do oral health screening of 3rd grade students that's why they don't report it. However there are plenty of data on NJ dental health overall. Sorry, NJ doesn't face any imminent dental health collapse due to lack of fluorides in its tap water, there are no data pointing at an ongoing public health disaster in NJ.

Beside, it takes some deliberate efforts (and extra expense) to avoid fluorides in toothpastes, mouthwashes, multivitamins, etc. You cannot avoid that stuff.
Quote:
Sorry, but the cumulative evidence over seven decades where actual cavities were evaluated trumps your telephone survey.
So your telephone surveys are better than my telephone surveys. I think I just have have returned to the careless days of playing in a sandbox.
Quote:
Ghettos? Fresh immigrants? Really?
Yes, NJ has it all, ghettos, industrial blight, and many fresh immigrants, legal and illegal.
Quote:
But the studies on fluoride include all comers, though for some reason you think that studying subsets is somehow more valuable.
Again and again you simply ignore the fact many things have changed besides adding fluoride to tap water in the past 70 years. How conveniently misleading is to mix everybody and everything in a data pull and attribute all the improvements (if any) to adding fluoride to tap water.

I think it's simple common sense to study effects of fluorides on dental and general health of the 2nd generation (at least) affluent. This would enable researchers to disregard social class, poor neonatal care, poor diets, oral hygiene habits and addictions (to some extent, at least) and ready access to quality dental/health care as variables, and concentrate their attention on the effects of fluorides on dental health. Studying this particular subset of population is much more valuable than studying medicaid recipients. There is no comparison, actually.
Quote:
Sure, there will be more dentists in urban areas. There are more people there. People in rural counties will go to urban areas to see dentists.
Rural wages cannot buy as much of urban dental care as urban wages can. Rural counties have minimum (if any) social assistance programs, free clinics and so on.
Quote:
Wage nomads? Who is "An older person on medicaid ... " ?
So you are born an older person on medicaid or you sell your wage slaving arse to the highest bidder and bounce around the country for a while before that?
Quote:
Whatever reservations you have about fluoride, trying to say it is ineffective does not work. It does prevent cavities.
Trying to say that it's effective just because it's effective reminds me a Christian radio talk station.

Last edited by RememberMee; 10-13-2013 at 03:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 03:05 PM
 
4,985 posts, read 5,068,834 times
Reputation: 6324
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Of course, the public consents to fluoridation. Its only a small vocal minority that opposes it. Any city with a fluoridated water supply has a mayor and a council who stand for regular elections.
Many states have fluoridation laws on the books, a mayor cannot do a squat about those laws. Actually, many Rustbelt mayors wouldn't mind doing something about it, since it's a very expensive water treatment, but they can't.

Quote:
These officials can be defeated for re-election if the citizens oppose any action they take. All you need to do is organize those hordes of people who don't want fluoridated water and vote the current officials out of office.
Minority rules the majority because majority spends most of its waking hours trying to survive a day, it has no free time, extra money or safety net to engage in political activism. Actually, many are afraid to even voice their opinion on the most trivial subjects, since it may jeopardize their current and future employment opportunities. It takes some very serious pain for citizens to overcome their lack of funds, time and perpetual fear. And even then it takes "organizers" (with their own agenda and goals) to rein in and manipulate all that public discontent. "All you need is organize" is a soothing fiction, it doesn't work like that in the wild. Also, public don't just consent to anything, consent is manufactured (in full meaning of the word) and billion$ are spent in the process.
Quote:
What I object to is the small vocal minority who opposes fluoridation having their way. If they don't like it they can move to another community without fluoridation or buy a filtration system for their own home.
Why can't you buy a private fluoridation system instead? Why vocal minority should pay both for your fluoridated water and their filters, or incur significant expense and move to the Moon? You want it, you pay for it. It's an American way, isn't it?

Last edited by RememberMee; 10-13-2013 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 04:10 PM
 
9,211 posts, read 9,286,664 times
Reputation: 28880
Quote:
Many states have fluoridation laws on the books, a mayor cannot do a squat about those laws. Actually, many Rustbelt mayors wouldn't mind doing something about it, since it's a very expensive water treatment, but they can't.
Than the people you need to talk to are your state legislators. You elect them. You instruct them to repeal laws you don't like. Of course, if you are in the minority it probably won't happen and that's the way its supposed to be.

Quote:
Minority rules the majority because majority spends most of its waking hours trying to survive a day, it has no free time, extra money or safety net to engage in political activism. Actually, many are afraid to even voice their opinion on the most trivial subjects, since it may jeopardize their current and future employment opportunities. It takes some very serious pain for citizens to overcome their lack of funds, time and perpetual fear. And even then it takes "organizers" (with their own agenda and goals) to rein in and manipulate all that public discontent. "All you need is organize" is a soothing fiction, it doesn't work like that in the wild. Also, public don't just consent to anything, consent is manufactured (in full meaning of the word) and billion$ are spent in the process.
What an awful excuse. People prevail in this country all the time by standing outside super markets and getting signatures for Initiative petitions. Nothing prevents you from doing the very same thing where I live. Nothing prevents you from running for the state assembly or legislature if you don't like your choice of candidates. That's the beauty of a Republic or Representative Democracy or whatever you call our system. My own father served in the state legislature at one time. You just want to make excuses for why your minority point of view doesn't carry the day. People prevail over money all the time. My father was elected to the state legislature with a budget of under $1000. He did have to knock on a lot of doors though.



Quote:
Why can't you buy a private fluoridation system instead? Why vocal minority should pay both for your fluoridated water and their filters, or incur significant expense and move to the Moon? You want it, you pay for it. It's an American way, isn't it?
I guess you didn't take Civics in high school. The American way is majority rule. This isn't true when someone can demonstrate that something raises constitutional issues. However, the courts don't accept that water fluoridation violates anyone's constitutional rights. Its tough, but that's the way it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,440 posts, read 28,306,241 times
Reputation: 29041
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Let's look.
Data from several sources are presented in Oral Health Maps. The Adult indicators come from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The Child indicators come from state oral health screeningsfor states that choose to provide the results of their surveys.

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the world's largest, on-going telephone health survey system
States conduct statewide oral health screenings using protocols comparable to the Basic Screening Survey (BSS) protocol developed in cooperation with the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (ASTDD). Most states screen 3rd grade students.


You realize you are talking mostly about telephone surveys, don't you?
You did not read what you posted:

The Adult indicators come from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). That's adults.

We're talking about fluoride, which has its major impact on children.

The Child indicators come from state oral health screenings for states that choose to provide the results of their surveys.

That means they were from actual examinations.

Q.E.D.

Quote:
There are plenty of survey data on oral health of New Jersey residents, including data in your link. New Jersey doesn't do oral health screening of 3rd grade students that's why they don't report it. However there are plenty of data on NJ dental health overall. Sorry, NJ doesn't face any imminent dental health collapse due to lack of fluorides in its tap water, there are no data pointing at an ongoing public health disaster in NJ.
You cannot compare NJ to any other state if you do not have the data. They do not report for any age group.

Quote:
Beside, it takes some deliberate efforts (and extra expense) to avoid fluorides in toothpastes, mouthwashes, multivitamins, etc. You cannot avoid that stuff.
That would not have any effect on a comparison of the effects of fluoridated water unless somehow people without fluoridated water were more likely to use products with fluoride, which they indeed might be. Their dentists might recommend it.

However, the result would be to blunt the difference between the number of people with cavities in a group of people who get fluoride in water and a group that doesn't. The group with fluoride in the water still get fewer cavities.

Quote:
So your telephone surveys are better than my telephone surveys. I think I just have have returned to the careless days of playing in a sandbox.
No, data collected from physical examination of the teeth trumps your telephone survey.

Quote:
Yes, NJ has it all, ghettos, industrial blight, and many fresh immigrants, legal and illegal.
Please show me any data that the people in "ghettos" and immigrants are any more or less likely to live in areas that are fluoridated than areas that are not. You have a lot of opinions and no facts to back them up.

Quote:
Again and again you simply ignore the fact many things have changed besides adding fluoride to tap water in the past 70 years. How conveniently misleading is to mix everybody and everything in a data pull and attribute all the improvements (if any) to adding fluoride to tap water.
Show me any evidence that the factors you describe influence whether someone lives in an area with fluoride in the water or not.

Unless the populations with and without fluoride are fundamentally different, the comparison is valid.

Quote:
I think it's simple common sense to study effects of fluorides on dental and general health of the 2nd generation (at least) affluent. This would enable researchers to disregard social class, poor neonatal care, poor diets, oral hygiene habits and addictions (to some extent, at least) and ready access to quality dental/health care as variables, and concentrate their attention on the effects of fluorides on dental health. Studying this particular subset of population is much more valuable than studying medicaid recipients. There is no comparison, actually.
Well, actually, your prize study has been done.

Relationship between fluoridation and socioeconomic status on dental caries experience in 5-year-old New Zealand children - Evans - 2006 - Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology - Wiley Online Library

"This article examines the relationship between fluoridation and socioeconomic status on caries experience, as measured by the dmf index, in 5-yr-old New Zealand children in the city of Dunedin (fluoridated in 1967) and in adjacent non-fluoride communities. "

"A two-way analysis of variance demonstrated that interaction between fluoride history and socioeconomic status was not significant."

Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease

This is a recent (2010) article:

"Water fluoridation status, residence remoteness, and socioeconomic status (SES) were obtained for each child's recorded residential postcode area."

"Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. That means the statistical calculation considered socioeconomic status.

Quote:
Rural wages cannot buy as much of urban dental care as urban wages can. Rural counties have minimum (if any) social assistance programs, free clinics and so on.
That is quite a blanket statement. Do you have a source for that information? No? Just your opinion?

Quote:
So you are born an older person on medicaid or you sell your wage slaving arse to the highest bidder and bounce around the country for a while before that?
Is this person someone you know personally? Your point is mystifying.

Quote:
Trying to say that it's effective just because it's effective reminds me a Christian radio talk station.
I am saying fluoride is effective because there is data to support it, starting with the original observation of the effect of fluoride found naturally in water.

You are saying it is not effective because you personally believe it is not effective, with no facts to back it up.

So who's really preaching?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 05:21 PM
 
4,985 posts, read 5,068,834 times
Reputation: 6324
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Than the people you need to talk to are your state legislators. You elect them. You instruct them to repeal laws you don't like. Of course, if you are in the minority it probably won't happen and that's the way its supposed to be.
Majority probably doesn't suspect about existence of fluorides in their tap water, it's too insignificant for them, so your appeal to the numbers doesn't prove much.

Let's brush up on the numbers of state legislators, time they serve and the staggering numbers of laws (me or you might not like). So if it's 100 legislators, serving 4 years and overseeing 10,000 of the major laws alone, I don't really need to explain further, your naivete is self-evident. For the sake of argument, let's assume we got politically excited, how many laws our activism can change realistically speaking? Especially considering that an office runners (mysteriously popping out of nowhere) may say that he wants to change Law A (you also want to change) but he wants to keep Law B (you also want to change). To inject even more realism in my pondering, let's assume a legislator got elected and reneged on all his promises (happens all the time), thus you have to wait for 4 years more to bring a "change".

I don't want to take soothing delusions away from you, but the only difference between you and a Chinese peasant is the fact that a Chinese peasant does what he's told and you vote (every 2 to 6 years) and do what you are told anyway. Your appeal to political process and citizen activism in 100% ridiculous in the light of reality. The only chance for your activism to matter is when some unknown (but wealthy) interest groups would hitch your wagon to their train because of whatever. Otherwise, media blackout, smear and all the usual social control tricks would keep you irrelevant, even assuming you stashed some cash, and you don't need a job for while.
Quote:
What an awful excuse. People prevail in this country all the time by standing outside super markets and getting signatures for Initiative petitions.
The only way for your petitions to make any difference is when your petition collecting can be used by various interest groups (with much cash and influence) to advance their agendas. Otherwise, see above.
Quote:
Nothing prevents you from doing the very same thing where I live. Nothing prevents you from running for the state assembly or legislature if you don't like your choice of candidates.
That nothing is called connections, wealth, business interests, charismatic personality, adherence to the ideological staples, and so on. Just face the reality, my friend, random people don't run (not speaking of winning) in elections. Again, you conveniently forgetting that a generic wage slave must work in order to eat and live under a roof, he has no discretionary income or time to run in elections. Just open your eyes and look at the people who get elected.
Quote:
That's the beauty of a Republic or Representative Democracy or whatever you call our system. My own father served in the state legislature at one time. You just want to make excuses for why your minority point of view doesn't carry the day.
You wasted perfect opportunity to give us more details about your father background at the time of his election. The whole point of Republic is to prevent the rule of majority. They don't teach that in civics?
Quote:
People prevail over money all the time. My father was elected to the state legislature with a budget of under $1000. He did have to knock on a lot of doors though.
It's exactly my point, somebody hitched your father' wagon to their train because your father is such a wonderful guy, there is no doubt about that.
Quote:
I guess you didn't take Civics in high school. The American way is majority rule. This isn't true when someone can demonstrate that something raises constitutional issues. However, the courts don't accept that water fluoridation violates anyone's constitutional rights. Its tough, but that's the way it is.
I strongly doubt "majority rule" claim. Majority is herded and made to consent to whatever ruling class wants it to accept (using nonviolent methods most of the times though), otherwise it's highly oligarchical political system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 06:24 PM
 
4,985 posts, read 5,068,834 times
Reputation: 6324
[quote=suzy_q2010;31794456]
Quote:

The Child indicators come from state oral health screenings for states that choose to provide the results of their surveys. That means they were from actual examinations.
Oral health screenings are not comprehensive, a state picks a sample of kids to be screened by volunteers or paid screeners. OK, it's one data point. QED indeed. NJ, as I said, doesn't do this sort of screening thus it has nothing to report and hide.
Quote:
You cannot compare NJ to any other state if you do not have the data. They do not report for any age group.
Did you check the link you posted previously? It has data on adult oral health for NJ residents, and it's better than average from what I can say. Because only 14% drink fluoridated water one could expect oral health disaster there.
Quote:
No, data collected from physical examination of the teeth trumps your telephone survey.
One data point collected on a sample of 3rd graders trumps yours and mine telephone surveys. OK, that sounds reasonable.
Quote:
Please show me any data that the people in "ghettos" and immigrants are any more or less likely to live in areas that are fluoridated than areas that are not. You have a lot of opinions and no facts to back them up.
That's another needless nitpicking I can't figure out. So you want to say that fluoridated water is some sort of elixir that can reverse dental problems of the recent immigrants and thus I should provide you with immigrant population distribution? I've made a simple point that immigrants and ghetto dwellers just don't visit dentists frequently, many have chronic dental issues (cost fortune to fix) and thus they should bring averages down.

Quote:
Show me any evidence that the factors you describe influence whether someone lives in an area with fluoride in the water or not.
You avoided addressing my point again. I'll try one more time. Consider fluoride free year of 1945, diets, accessibility, frequency & quality of dental care. Consider fluoride rich year of 2013, diets, accessibility, frequency and quality of dental care. Compare oral health in 1945 and 2013. So far, you ignored all the factors but fluoridation to come up with your conclusions about incredible effectiveness of fluoridation and that's just wrong.

Quote:
Well, actually, your prize study has been done.

Relationship between fluoridation and socioeconomic status on dental caries experience in 5-year-old New Zealand children - Evans - 2006 - Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology - Wiley Online Library

"This article examines the relationship between fluoridation and socioeconomic status on caries experience, as measured by the dmf index, in 5-yr-old New Zealand children in the city of Dunedin (fluoridated in 1967) and in adjacent non-fluoride communities. "
Judging from the abstract my prize study doesn't support your point as much as you believe it does, class is more important than fluoridation.
The children were subdivided into six socioeconomic status groups (SES 1, professional and managerial - SES 6, unskilled workers), but then for simplicity they were combined to form three groups.... In all three SES groups, dmf was higher in non-fluoride communities, but the difference was significant only in SES group (5&6) (P < 0.01). Caries experience increased with decreasing socioeconomic status in both fluoride and non-fluoride communities, but this effect was only significant between SES groups (1&2) and (3&4)

Considering that they didn't account for the residential history... it's less than conclusive.

Quote:
"Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. That means the statistical calculation considered socioeconomic status.
Since this study didn't account for socio-economic status at all, I don't see the basis for your claim.
Quote:
That is quite a blanket statement. Do you have a source for that information? No? Just your opinion?
Lower rural wages is my opinion? Lesser number (or none) of the assistance programs for rural residents is all in my head? Common don't be ridiculous.
People living in rural America earn less than those who live in the cities. It's been that way for ages. In 2006, the average wage and salary for workers living in nonmetro counties was $602 a week — 23 percent less than the $783 earned by urban workers
Quote:
Is this person someone you know personally? Your point is mystifying.
what's so mystifying about moving from place to place before settling down, applying for medicaid and participating in the studies on fluoride goodness?

Last edited by RememberMee; 10-13-2013 at 06:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,440 posts, read 28,306,241 times
Reputation: 29041
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Oral health screenings are not comprehensive, a state picks a sample of kids to be screened by volunteers or paid screeners. OK, it's one data point. QED indeed. NJ, as I said, doesn't do this sort of screening thus it has nothing to report and hide.
Since NJ does not tell us its statistics on children, we cannot compare it to other states.

Quote:
Did you check the link you posted previously? It has data on adult oral health for NJ residents, and it's better than average from what I can say. Because only 14% drink fluoridated water one could expect oral health disaster there.
"Oral health" is not the same as tooth decay. It includes everything up to and including oral cancer. Since fluoride is relevant only to caries, only statistics pertaining to caries are relevant.

Why would we predict "oral health disaster? We would predict about 38% more cavities in NJ. We can't know because NJ chooses not to tell us.

Quote:
One data point collected on a sample of 3rd graders trumps yours and mine telephone surveys. OK, that sounds reasonable.
I did not use a telephone survey. You did .

Quote:
That's another needless nitpicking I can't figure out. So you want to say that fluoridated water is some sort of elixir that can reverse dental problems of the recent immigrants and thus I should provide you with immigrant population distribution? I've made a simple point that immigrants and ghetto dwellers just don't visit dentists frequently, many have chronic dental issues (cost fortune to fix) and thus they should bring averages down.
Immigrants and "ghetto" dwellers have children included in the state statistics. Medicaid is picking up the tab.

Quote:
You avoided addressing my point again. I'll try one more time. Consider fluoride free year of 1945, diets, accessibility, frequency & quality of dental care. Consider fluoride rich year of 2013, diets, accessibility, frequency and quality of dental care. Compare oral health in 1945 and 2013. So far, you ignored all the factors but fluoridation to come up with your conclusions about incredible effectiveness of fluoridation and that's just wrong.
You are making the wrong comparison. You do not compare 1945 to 2013, you compare with and without fluoride in 1945 or with and without fluoride in 2013. Would you compare the treatment of coronary artey disease in 1945 to the treatment of coronary artery disease in 2013?

Quote:
Judging from the abstract my prize study doesn't support your point as much as you believe it does, class is more important than fluoridation.

The children were subdivided into six socioeconomic status groups (SES 1, professional and managerial - SES 6, unskilled workers), but then for simplicity they were combined to form three groups.... In all three SES groups, dmf was higher in non-fluoride communities, but the difference was significant only in SES group (5&6) (P < 0.01). Caries experience increased with decreasing socioeconomic status in both fluoride and non-fluoride communities, but this effect was only significant between SES groups (1&2) and (3&4)

Considering that they didn't account for the residential history... it's less than conclusive.
You are ignoring the major conclusion of the study: the rates did not differ between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups based on socioeconomic status. There were differences between some of the subgroups within the fluoridated group and within the nonfluoridated group, but not all of them.

If you believe that people moving from place to place makes a significant difference, provide some evidence to support it. Show that it makes a significant difference.

Quote:
Since this study didn't account for socio-economic status at all, I don't see the basis for your claim.
Read the statement again. "Controlling for SES" [socioeconomic status] means that socioeconomic status was accounted for. That's what controlling for means in scientific studies.

The fact that you do not know that means you have not an inkling about how scientific studies are conducted.

Quote:
Lower rural wages is my opinion? Lesser number (or none) of the assistance programs for rural residents is all in my head? Common don't be ridiculous.
People living in rural America earn less than those who live in the cities. It's been that way for ages. In 2006, the average wage and salary for workers living in nonmetro counties was $602 a week 23 percent less than the $783 earned by urban workers
what's so mystifying about moving from place to place before settling down, applying for medicaid and participating in the studies on fluoride goodness?
What about the cost of living in metro areas? Did you control for that? And who are these multitudes of people who move around from place to place? How many of them are there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top