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 10-12-2013, 09:11 AM
 
4,988 posts, read 5,071,382 times
Reputation: 6330

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
Here you are bloviating again, with no credible evidence that your opinion has any validity, stacked against 70 years of scientific research and study.
Here you do your baah, baah science again, without a thought or consideration in your head. Are invocations and calls upon a divine power of science a part of scientific method these days? Alleged 70 years of scientific research on fluoridation are superimposed on 70 years of the social&technological changes, improvements in diets, dental care as well as the rise of the welfare state (a single most important factor). Scientists, in all their wisdom, picked demographics that is the most affected by those changes to prove that fluoridation works. A scientist can't single out effects of fluoridation without a considerable degree of speculation and pulling numbers from one' hairy arse.

The question remains why posh gated communities were not studies for 70 years to prove overwhelming public good of fluoridation? It should have been the most obvious choice. Is it because private wells and/or private expensive water filtration systems tend to get rid of the public goodness of fluorides in water? Considerable % of people are deprived of the fluoride goodness because they have private wells. Something has to be done.

Last edited by RememberMee; 10-12-2013 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2013, 09:44 AM
 
4,988 posts, read 5,071,382 times
Reputation: 6330
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
This kind of a post is an example of the expression "water off a duck's back".

If this poster has bothered to read anything other than his own opinion, he's seen endless concrete evidence that water fluoridation works and is cost effective in preventing tooth decay. He could also infer that no harm has ever proven by fluoridation simply by looking at the example of places like Colorado Springs that have naturally fluoridated water since the community was founded.

An explanation why his "Western diet theory" of tooth decay is flawed has been given.

Yet, because its not what he wants to believe, he simply ignores an endless array of science and established fact.

Some discussions can be pretty frustrating and this is one of them. Some minds are not open to receiving new information that is contrary to their view of the world. It doesn't matter how credible the material is or how it is derived.

Ultimately, all we can do is hope that other people with open minds are listening and learning that hard science and economics substantiates the value of adding fluoride to the water supply.
Just re-read your post and tell us what "new information" it introduced? Empty statement upon empty statement, everything not to think about "endless concrete evidence that water fluoridation works", which, btw, wasn't even the point of my post.

All I said that there are factors affecting dental health much more than alleged lack of fluorides in the drinking water. Especially, considering all increasing number of people who don't cook/drink at home and hydrate themselves with bottled water and soft drinks. Thus public good priorities are somewhat perplexing, just as perplexing as studying toothless medicaid recipients to prove that fluoridation works miracles for the public treasure (it could be so, low end dentures are so much cheaper than maintaining original teeth).

So diets rich in carbohydrates, sugars and acids no longer leading cause of tooth decay, so social class and access to dental care are not longer linked to tooth decay as long as there are fluorides in the water? So Colorado Springs tooth staining proves exactly what, amount of fluorides sufficient to stain your teeth make them unpalatable for certain kinds of bacteria? I bet staining teeth in countless other ways would have about the same effect. Let's just dump everything in the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 12:13 PM
 
4,096 posts, read 6,426,598 times
Reputation: 4188
I believe there are some 41% of children with fluorosis. I thought you might like to see what fluorides can do.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fluo...&bih=685&dpr=1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,649,185 times
Reputation: 10581
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Alleged 70 years of scientific research on fluoridation are superimposed on 70 years of the social&technological changes, improvements in diets, dental care as well as the rise of the welfare state (a single most important factor).
The research isn't alleged, it's real and it's documented. Despite all the societal changes you mention, fluoridated water continues to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Scientists, in all their wisdom, picked demographics that is the most affected by those changes to prove that fluoridation works.
Straw man argument. Dental research cuts across all social strata and economic layers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
A scientist can't single out effects of fluoridation without a considerable degree of speculation
Single scientists studying small groups can't isolate effects, no, but the ones pushing pseudoscience scary stories pretend to do that. Large scale epidemiological studies, however, like the one CDC used to prove that vaccines don't cause vaccine, can separate causes and effects from unrelated factors. And it is the CDC which lists public water fluoridation among the Top 10 Public Health Successes of the 20th century.

Quote:
(Sixty eight) years ago, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the world’s first city to adjust the level of fluoride in its water supply. Since that time, fluoridation has dramatically improved the oral health of tens of millions of Americans. Community water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proclaimed community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Fluoridation of community water supplies is simply the precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels in drinking water to an optimal fluoride level recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service.

Studies conducted throughout the past 68 years have consistently indicated that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults. It is the most efficient way to prevent one of the most common childhood diseases – tooth decay (5 times as common as asthma and 7 times as common as hay fever in 5- to17-year-olds).
.....
Early studies, such as those conducted in Grand Rapids, showed that water fluoridation reduced the amount of cavities children get in their baby teeth by as much as 60% and reduced tooth decay in permanent adult teeth nearly 35%. Today, studies prove water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing tooth decay by 20-40%, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.

http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndE...tion_facts.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
The question remains why posh gated communities were not studies for 70 years to prove overwhelming public good of fluoridation?
More of your straw man fallacy. You just make stuff up to fit your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
All I said that there are factors affecting dental health much more than alleged lack of fluorides in the drinking water. Especially, considering all increasing number of people who don't cook/drink at home and hydrate themselves with bottled water and soft drinks.
None of that, or what follows, invalidates the proven positive effects from fluoridating public water supplies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
So Colorado Springs tooth staining proves exactly what, amount of fluorides sufficient to stain your teeth make them unpalatable for certain kinds of bacteria?
As the research clearly shows, the staining is a harmless side effect of naturally occurring high levels fluoride in their water, but where fluoride is added to municipal water supplies it is at much lower levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
I bet staining teeth in countless other ways would have about the same effect. Let's just dump everything in the water.
Another ridiculous, and totally meaningless argument. The efficacy of fluoride in reducing dental cavities has nothing at all to do with accidental staining.

<yawn> That's two more posts of yours with absolutely no facts presented, OZ, just more unsupported windbaggery.

Last edited by OpenD; 10-12-2013 at 01:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 12:43 PM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,471,815 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by donsabi View Post
I believe there are some 41% of children with fluorosis. I thought you might like to see what fluorides can do.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fluo...&bih=685&dpr=1
Certainly isn't 41%, is harmless, and better than cavities. Give it up, you're striking out time after time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 12:45 PM
 
241 posts, read 207,493 times
Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
You're just repeating mindless propaganda. There is extensive, scientifically validated proof of the value of fluoridation for improving dental health. Meanwhile the claims of illness being caused by it are routinely disproven by credible research. And fluoride is not a medication. It occurs naturally in drinking water in many places, which is how its beneficial effects were discovered.
If it occurs naturally in drinking water, then why add more?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 01:04 PM
 
4,096 posts, read 6,426,598 times
Reputation: 4188
Fluorides also negatively affect those with thyroid issues. This is especially important as the public is ambushed in silence to administer the drug fluoride to themselves by its inclusion in drinking water. What about an individual's right to informed consent?

The following statement is from a NCBI publication. If you care to read the entire report the link is below. Keep in mind that fluorides added to water are not dose controlled. A child or an adult can get any amount of fluoride according to how little or how much they drink. Can you imagine a doctor prescribing a medication like that? Secondly, the fluorides used in our water supply is not pharmaceutical grade fluorides but instead the waste product of the fertilizer industry so toxic it can not be disposed of in our environment.

"Fluoride was used as a drug to treat hyperthyroidism because it reduces thyroid activity quite effectively. This is due to the ability of fluoride to mimic the action of thyrotropin (TSH). Excess fluoride correlates with the other thyroid-related issues such as iodine deficiency. Fluorine and iodine, both being members of the halogen group of atoms, have an antagonistic relationship. When there is excess of fluoride in the body it can interfere with the function of the thyroid gland. Thus, fluoride has been linked to thyroid problems. Patient who wish to avoid the effect of fluoride on their thyroid can utilize fluoride free toothpaste such as Carifree, an oral neutralizer gel."


Oral manifestations of thyroid disorders and its management
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 01:14 PM
 
4,988 posts, read 5,071,382 times
Reputation: 6330
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
The research isn't alleged, it's real and it's documented. Despite all the societal changes you mention, fluoridated water continues to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Allah is Great, Allah is great, Allah is great. Research is great, research is great, research is great. Jesus is real, Jesus is real, Jesus is real.

Repeating a statement 100s times over doesn't constitute an argument.

Quote:
Straw man argument. Dental research cuts across all social strata and economic layers.
Straw man argument. Dental health is the most affected by the lack of dental care of any kind that low income crowd enjoys. High income crowd is the least likely to drink unfiltered water enriched with public fluorides but they have assured access to the high quality dental care. Thus studying effects of fluoridated water on the low income mouths full of the rotten teeth (because a trip to a dentist is 10 years overdue) introduces significant amount of wishful thinking and personal bias in data interpretations.

Quote:
Single scientists studying small groups can't isolate effects, no,
So it's only logical to study large groups where dental health is affected by dozens of factors other than fluorides in drinking water? Makes perfect sense. OK, if you think high income crowd is not a good object for fluoride studies, what about the studies of rural populations drinking well water? Are their teeth any worse/better than those of a ghetto dweller partaking of public fluoride largess? Can we express that difference as a number attributed solely to the lack of fluorides in their water? Any ideas?

Here is a remarkable piece of research I stumbled upon:
Rural populations have 1lower dental care utilization, 2higher rates of dental caries, 3lower rates of insurance, 4higher rates of poverty, 5less water fluoridation, 6fewer dentists per population, and 7 greater distances to travel to access care than urban populations. Improving the oral health of rural populations requires practical and flexible approaches to expand and better distribute the rural oral health workforce, including approaches tailored to remote areas. Solutions that involve mass prevention/public health interventions include 1increasing water fluoridation, providing timely oral health education, caries risk assessment and referral, preventive services, and offering behavioral interventions such as smoking and tobacco cessation programs. Solutions that train more providers prepared to work in rural areas include recruiting students from rural areas, training students in rural locations, and providing loan repayment and scholarships....

It's like water fluoridation is a cure it all, the cure that justifies existence of the bloated public health departments. What other meaningful solutions can those departments offer (and, most importantly, control)? Dumping fluoride salts in water is pretty much the only thing they can do, so let's just pretend it does the trick, just ignore proles' rotten smiles and all the bunk pointing to the negative health effects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,649,185 times
Reputation: 10581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlanynna View Post
If it occurs naturally in drinking water, then why add more?
As the statement I quoted earlier from the American Dental Association says:

"Fluoridation of community water supplies is simply the precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels in drinking water to an optimal fluoride level recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,458 posts, read 28,330,599 times
Reputation: 29053
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
It's kinda perplexing to see that science chose medicaid recipients, i.e. the least suitable demographics, to study overwhelming success of fluoridation. Don't you think? It's the fact that significant % of medicaid recipients have terrible (or no) teeth. One could only imagine the dental catastrophe among medicaid recipients without alleged $37 per $1 savings attributed to fluoridation.

Why science didn't choose a posh gated community to study effects of fluoridation on dental health, taxation and public expenditures? It makes too much sense?

Could it be that financing mandatory dental cleaning and check ups, for example, among 18-26 y.o. would be more effective than fluoridation? Since we are talking mandatory public good here, what about outlawing phosphoric acid in soft drinks? I have a hunch that it would save $37,000 per every enforcement dollar. If you want phosphoric acid in your soft drinks you always can move to Mexico or China. The point remains, fluoridation took the lead among public health measures even though it belongs at the end, if anywhere.
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.

Why study Medicaid recipients?

"Although numerous epidemiologic studies in New York State (NYS) have shown the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing caries, data on the impact of the fluoridation program on Medicaid claims could be more convincing to policy makers at the local level.15, 2125 Therefore, an evaluation was undertaken to determine if the number of claims reimbursed for specific caries-related services for children in the Medicaid program varied by county fluoridation coverage."

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.

The study results:

"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."

If you do not understand why p<0.0001 is outlandishly significant you really do not need to be discussing anything scientific at all.

Said another way, fluoride reduced claims for tooth decay by over 33%. Claims not related to tooth decay were not decreased.

The science is not on your side. Fluoride in water works best if it is available before you get your permanent teeth. If you also brush (with fluoride) and floss and see a dentist twice a year for cleaning, you will probably keep all your teeth for your entire life.

Could you also show me where you found the "fact that significant % of medicaid recipients have terrible (or no) teeth."?

Fluoridation works during the formation of the permanent teeth. It has already done its job by the time you get to that 18-26 year age group you mentioned. Why choose that age range, by the way? Just pull it out of thin air?
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. The time now is 09:43 AM.

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