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.
You are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Since you do not understand the science, you really are not able to critique it.
You just degenerated into name calling, how unusual. Apparently, it take incomprehensible amount of science knowledge to see that low SES areas may have disproportionate amount of middle class kids and vise verse. The study you cited could track social background of each and every kid, it's a trivial amount of extra information added to a lengthy dental survey form. Instead they went SES route, which may impress enthusiasts like yourself but otherwise less than conclusive.
Besides alleged 29% improvements are not impressive, to say the least, as I said a simple ban on phosphoric acid alone would overshadow alleged goodness of fluorides. It takes more than simple parroting to claim above average understanding of science. I don't claim that, btw, I'm just trying to sort through this fluoride thing. 29% of the alleged improvements, that's paltry rationale for national fluoridation even assuming that the number is correct (not a fact).
Quote:
So it is all right for those who want fluoride, but live in areas where it is not in the water, to have to go to "extra efforts" to get it, but it is not all right to have to go to "extra efforts" to avoid it. I see.
Is it impossible for you to have something without encroaching on somebody' desire not to have it?
So what else on top of fluorides do you want to get in your water? Magnesium, zinc, vitamins B-6 and E, Selenium or Iodine maybe? Why should you be making an extra effort to get those?
That's what I claimed - "extra efforts" and expense, nothing more nothing less.
What extra efforts to find them? They're right there on the shelf of a normal supermarket, and at normal prices. There are not a huge selection because most consumers prefer the fluoridated kind, for the proven dental health benefits they offer.
This is the simple truth that you keep evading, that opponents of fluoridation in this country are in a small minority - so small it is considered a fringe interest.
... low SES areas may have disproportionate amount of middle class kids and vise verse.
Or vice versa, as they say in Wan Wert. Oh, OZ, you crack me up with your ongoing pretense of superiority over others.
Fluoridated water is cheap, cheap, cheap compared to any other public health measure, at an average annual cost of about $1 per person. And it's proven effective, dramatically reducing cavities and with an ROI of $38 per $1 spent in reduced dental costs alone, not even considering the greater societal costs of
other illness and disease caused or contributed to by poor dental health.
Quote:
Is it impossible for you to have something without encroaching on somebody' desire not to have it? So what else on top of fluorides do you want to get in your water? Magnesium, zinc, vitamins B-6 and E, Selenium or Iodine maybe? Why should you be making an extra effort to get those?
More straw horse argument. Nobody is advocating for any of those.
Fluoride in drinking water is normal and natural in many parts of the US, and it benefits dental health, so it was seen that the fluoride content could be adjusted up to optimum health levels at very little cost, so it was done, with measurable positive effects, and little to no negative effects.
That should be enough for any reasonable person to understand. The key word there is reasonable.
You just degenerated into name calling, how unusual. Apparently, it take incomprehensible amount of science knowledge to see that low SES areas may have disproportionate amount of middle class kids and vise verse. The study you cited could track social background of each and every kid, it's a trivial amount of extra information added to a lengthy dental survey form. Instead they went SES route, which may impress enthusiasts like yourself but otherwise less than conclusive.
If an area has a "disproportionate amount of middle class kids", it is not a low socioeconomic area.
However, the study, which was not a survey, did track the socioeconomic status of each child. It was done with physical examination of the teeth looking for cavities, and the socioeconomic status was determined by asking the parents, not based on the address of the place where the children lived. SES = socioeconomic status, not socioeconomic status areas.
"The children were subdivided into six socioeconomic status groups (SES 1, professional and managerial - SES 6, unskilled workers) ... "
Quote:
Besides alleged 29% improvements are not impressive, to say the least, as I said a simple ban on phosphoric acid alone would overshadow alleged goodness of fluorides. It takes more than simple parroting to claim above average understanding of science. I don't claim that, btw, I'm just trying to sort through this fluoride thing. 29% of the alleged improvements, that's paltry rationale for national fluoridation even assuming that the number is correct (not a fact).
Do you have a source for the statement above in bold? You have yet to respond to any of my requests for evidence to support your personal opinions.
A 29% reduction in cavities is not "paltry." It is highly statistically and clinically significant.
Quote:
Is it impossible for you to have something without encroaching on somebody' desire not to have it?
So what else on top of fluorides do you want to get in your water? Magnesium, zinc, vitamins B-6 and E, Selenium or Iodine maybe? Why should you be making an extra effort to get those?
Why should someone who wants to drink soft drinks have to give them up? Why would anyone want the other things you mentioned added to water when there is no known benefit to doing so?
We live in a democratic republic. That means that we have the opportunity to vote for elected officials who make laws about how our communities are run. There are checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority. That does not mean the majority have to make it harder for themselves to do something so the minority can have their way more easily. Sorry, you are in the minority. You can either choose to live in a community that does not fluoridate its water or you can shoulder the burden of avoiding fluoride. Your choice.
What extra efforts to find them? They're right there on the shelf of a normal supermarket, and at normal prices. There are not a huge selection because most consumers prefer the fluoridated kind, for the proven dental health benefits they offer.
This is the simple truth that you keep evading, that opponents of fluoridation in this country are in a small minority - so small it is considered a fringe group.
Please, There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. They would follow whatever truth they see on TV screens, and since opponents of fluoridation are not on TV screen your appeal to the masses who saw the truth and fluoride goodness is ridiculous.
Box stores usually carry a single brand of non-fluoridated toothpaste, and frequently it's not stocked, it costs extra too.
If an area has a "disproportionate amount of middle class kids", it is not a low socioeconomic area.
Don't be ridiculous. An area with above average numbers of low income geezers would drag SES down, just an example.
Quote:
However, the study, which was not a survey, did track the socioeconomic status of each child. It was done with physical examination of the teeth looking for cavities, and the socioeconomic status was determined by asking the parents, not based on the address of the place where the children lived. SES = socioeconomic status, not socioeconomic status areas.
You mixed up two studies you cited. Now you refer to the New Zealand study, but in the previous post I was addressing Australian study where they used SES areas instead of New Zealand' head count approach. You should read and remember your references. I believe I voiced my opinion on New Zealand study a few posts back. It's not as conclusive as you make it to be.
Quote:
Do you have a source for the statement above in bold? You have yet to respond to any of my requests for evidence to support your personal opinions.
It's not like you cannot find information on your own. Root beer could be the safest soft drink for your teeth, new research suggests, but many other popular diet and sugared sodas are nearly as corrosive to dental enamel as battery acid. Acids in Popular Sodas Erode Tooth Enamel | LiveScience
Quote:
Why should someone who wants to drink soft drinks have to give them up?
Because drinking soft drinks is a leading cause of tooth decay. Since you feel justified to pour fluoride goodness down everybody' throat in the name of dental health. Why taking away soft drinks should be any different?
Quote:
We live in a democratic republic.
I voiced my opinion on a democratic republic in this thread. You are deluding yourself.
Or vice versa, as they say in Wan Wert. Oh, OZ, you crack me up with your ongoing pretense of superiority over others.
So far only you showed penchant for superiority and deconstructing unrelated stuff to give more "credibility" to your POV.
Quote:
Fluoridated water is cheap, cheap, cheap compared to any other public health measure, at an average annual cost of about $1 per person.
So you could not find $1 in your budget to add some targeted fluorides to water you actually consume?
Quote:
And it's proven effective, dramatically reducing cavities and with an ROI of $38 per $1 spent
After all this reading I believe it's proven only if you want to believe it's proven.
Quote:
More straw horse argument. Nobody is advocating for any of those.
Fluoride in drinking water is normal and natural in many parts of the US, and it benefits dental health, so it was seen that the fluoride content could be adjusted up to optimum health levels at very little cost, so it was done, with measurable positive effects, and little to no negative effects.
That should be enough for any reasonable person to understand. The key word there is reasonable.
You didn't answer the question, I'll repeat it.
Is it impossible for you to have fluorides in your water without encroaching on somebody' desire not to have those in their water?
Box stores usually carry a single brand of non-fluoridated toothpaste, and frequently it's not stocked, it costs extra too.
Good grief.
Ask for it to be stocked. Go to a drug store, not a "big box" store. Make your own toothpaste. If it's important enough to you, do something about it. It's your responsibility. No one else is obligated to make it easy for you.
In one ounce there are about 35 "servings" of toothpaste. With Tom's paste that is $0.58 divided by 35 = $0.016 cost to brush your teeth once.
If you brush twice a day, it will cost $11.68 per year to use Tom's toothpaste. Even if it is twice as expensive as basic Crest with fluoride, It will cost less than $6 per year more.
If you are not willing to pay that, going fluoride free must not matter very much to you.
I can no longer find the deodorant I prefer locally. Had to order it off the internet. Bought enough at one time that there was free shipping. No big deal that it cost a bit more than the Walmart price. I wanted it.
Ask for it to be stocked. Go to a drug store, not a "big box" store. Make your own toothpaste. If it's important enough to you, do something about it. It's your responsibility. No one else is obligated to make it easy for you.
I repeat it for 100s time, I consider this toothpaste issue to be totally insignificant but you two bring it up again, and again. Enough is enough.
If you go back the the first video posted on this thread the person featured is a doctor of dentistry. He presents a solid case against fluorides backed by valid studies.
Wellllll, maybe not so solid. What this single dentist - only one of 877,000 practising dentists in the US, according to 2010 Bureau of Labor statistics - is promoting is a personal opinion. While he makes some claims about various studies, he gives no actual citations to check, so the viewer is left with a "Trust me, I'm the professional here" appeal. And what could be his personal motivation, one might ask? Why, isn't it obvious? It's a great low-key marketing angle for Griffin Cole, DDS, NDM. That last means he's a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, so he's already oriented against conventional medicine, which is appealing to certain followers of alternative medicine. So as I always say, consider the source. He's someone who has something substantial to gain personally from convincing you that he's "the guy."
But what about all those other dentists who disagree with him? They have nothing personal to gain from supporting municipal water fluoridation, but the vast majority do, even though it reduces their potential business. Why? Because it's good for people.
Quote:
Then we have several posters here who are completely overboard in their defense of fluorides.
You must ask yourself, "what is their credentials and what is their motive?" Some of their posts are extremely extensive and appear to have hours upon hours of web searches. How many CD posters have that kind of time to put into thread or post? This might bring one to believe that they actually have a vested interest in the protection of fluorides.
More faulty thinking. I have zero vested interest in the protection of fluorides, but I do have time available and a huge personal interest in combating the wave of misguided anti-science activism that is overwhelming our society with absolute foolishness like this.
Stop, think...
Quote:
It is my understanding that when this fluoride scam ends there will be law suits against the fluoride perpetrators so large it will dwarf the tobacco industry settlements.
And it is my understanding that your understanding is ludicrous. Tobacco was and is a huge business. Fluoridation of municipal water supplies is a teensy tiny industry by comparison. You heard the Doc, Austin spends about $800,000 a year on the entire program, to serve approximately 890,000 people, and that's only 90 cents apiece. Per year. No deep pockets there.
Quote:
More importantly, as I have said before the fact remains the public is being medicated without their will or consent.
You keep saying it, but that doesn't mean it's so. Fluoride is normal in our water, not a medication. And the people in our democratic society do decide these things. Some communities have recently voted yes, some have voted no. That's the beauty of America.
Quote:
Vaccines are another supposed good thing but many have chosen not to vaccinate. Should they be forced to vaccinate?
Not a "supposed" thing, a proven thing. And the current fight against vaccination is even stupider than the fight against fluoridation, because the scientific evidence in support of vaccination is so overwhelming. Millions of people are currently living who predictably would have died without the protection of vaccines. Smallpox has already been eradicated from the world because of vaccination, and measles and polio were close behind before the idiocy of the anti-vax movement arose out of phony research which has now been thoroughly repudiated.
Quote:
Of course not no matter what anyone thinks.
To your side issue, if you choose not to vaccinate against infectious disease, which is your right, you affect not only yourself but everyone around you. So it is also the right of the people around you to deny you access to the group. Quarantine has been a legally recognized societal remedy since colonial days, and has been recently reconfirmed. Requiring children to receive vaccinations in order to attend public schools is not only legally defensible, it's a medical imperative in our modern global society. The measles epidemic that just hit Texas was triggered among a group of unvaccinated kids by a traveler from a foreign country where the disease is still endemic. Those poor kids, some of whom could suffer permanent lifelong health issues as a result are victims of their parents' ignorance, and the kind of unscientific misinformation that gets posted online.
Quote:
Should the public be medicated with fluorides without their consent or knowledge? Of course not!
<sigh> It's not a medication, so stop saying it is. And it's not even remotely a secret, and it's totally in the control of the democratic process, so the rest of that is meaningless as well. Saying the same wrong things over and over again doesn't make them right.
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.
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.
