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.
I don't think the main issue here is whether or not fluoride is good for your teeth,... I think the MAIN issue is that the government is meddling where they don't belong by legislating the addition of a chemical (drug) to be added to drinking water without specific dosage controls.
Like you said, dosage makes the difference between something tolerated by the body and a deadly poison. What, exactly is the dosage? Perhaps the people who have the positive stories lucked out and it worked for them. There is no way to discover how much water each individual is drinking on a day to day basis. Infants and children generally react differently to medication than adults. What about them? Proponents say that they are doing this for the children.
$20,000 REWARD FOR ANY PROOF THAT FLUORIDE WORKS. This offer was made back in the 1950s by a qualified dentist, Dr. Robert Mick, DDS, who was one of the original scientists who promoted fluoridation. He did his own studies on sodium fluoride, using animals in the late 1940's and then suddenly withdrew his support after authorities ordered him to cover up his test results. He refused, and went ahead to do more research on those very authorities who wanted him to cover up his results.
(I couldn't find more specific info on what type of research he did at that time.)
So confident was he with the results of his study, that Dr. Mick offered anyone "$20,000 to the first individual who can provide one copy of any controlled experiment with any of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) recommended fluorides in water, at the USPHS recommended parts-per-million, which shows that poisonous fluorides are safe and will cause no future body harm."
As of 1991, Dr. Mick's $20,000 offer had never been challenged and still stood, at least at that time. He put his money where his mouth is, with no takers.
We could "fact check" all day and probably never find sources upon which we both agree and this subject may not be one that people want to spend hours researching. If you do want to do further reading, here are sites that can provide even more hours of fluoride research Nirvana:
For most people, it is easier to go with the flow and believe what is popular and prevalent. People used to believe the world was flat, too. Interesting stuff.
I don't think the main issue here is whether or not fluoride is good for your teeth,... I think the MAIN issue is that the government is meddling where they don't belong by legislating the addition of a chemical (drug) to be added to drinking water without specific dosage controls.
The government often has to intervene with legislation when their constituents, some not of voting age, need a clearly reasonable and rational solution for a problem. There are specific dosage controls of sodium hexafluorosilicate listed here, though they are doing the math for dissociated F-:
To put this 160 page draft document (I'm sure they are finishing this up over time) into some perspective, they suggest that a 4mg/L (ppm) concentration might be too high, and not because it is a toxin that is inducing all of these cancers and chemically caused diseases, but due to those who might have a propensity for fluoride binding to bone. This is a very small amount of people. They suggest that a more rigorous study be done at 2mg/L and that a 1mg/L concentration is fine.
Remember my previous post about $1 being about a gram? Cut your dollar bill into 1000 little pieces, and that milligram is then dissolved in a liter of water. Say the average person has an intake of roughly 2L of water daily. Did we not establish that the toxicity of NaF, which you seem to keep bringing up that is not the same compound, is roughly 5-10g in a persons body? Not the 2-8 milligrams, that might be in your water based on standard EPA rates.
Fluoride in the solution of concern is F-, it is an ion. Here's an image of the periodic table, Fluorine is 9. Right next there to Oxygen 8.
The way the Fluoride is added is normally through Hexafluorosilicic acid. From the wiki page:
Near neutral pH, hexafluorosilicate salts hydrolyze rapidly according to this equation:
(Na2)SiF6 (2-) + 2 H2O → 6 F- + SiO2 + 4 H+
This SiO2 compound, is sometimes referred to as sand. Don't worry about the 4 protons, they will react with something in the water sooner or later. Take an environmental chemistry class if would like more detail.
To be absolutely clear, people who have an opinion on chemistry, without extensive coursework, have a very limited understanding on how these processes work and when. If you have interest in chemistry, toxicology, or want to have something beyond a baseless opinion, they have these strange things called classes and they are even offered at community colleges...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydoc
Like you said, dosage makes the difference between something tolerated by the body and a deadly poison. What, exactly is the dosage? Perhaps the people who have the positive stories lucked out and it worked for them. There is no way to discover how much water each individual is drinking on a day to day basis. Infants and children generally react differently to medication than adults. What about them? Proponents say that they are doing this for the children.
Reference above for dosage. A child drinking water will drink less than an adult, unless the child is very large. The 160 page document above goes into significant detail on this exact topic. The proponents are doing this for the children, those that didn't ask to be born to poor parents in particular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydoc
$20,000 REWARD FOR ANY PROOF THAT FLUORIDE WORKS. This offer was made back in the 1950s by a qualified dentist, Dr. Robert Mick, DDS, who was one of the original scientists who promoted fluoridation. He did his own studies on sodium fluoride, using animals in the late 1940's and then suddenly withdrew his support after authorities ordered him to cover up his test results. He refused, and went ahead to do more research on those very authorities who wanted him to cover up his results.
(I couldn't find more specific info on what type of research he did at that time.)
So confident was he with the results of his study, that Dr. Mick offered anyone "$20,000 to the first individual who can provide one copy of any controlled experiment with any of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) recommended fluorides in water, at the USPHS recommended parts-per-million, which shows that poisonous fluorides are safe and will cause no future body harm."
As of 1991, Dr. Mick's $20,000 offer had never been challenged and still stood, at least at that time. He put his money where his mouth is, with no takers.
We could "fact check" all day and probably never find sources upon which we both agree and this subject may not be one that people want to spend hours researching. If you do want to do further reading, here are sites that can provide even more hours of fluoride research Nirvana:
I don't think I need to comment on the majority of the text here that you cut & pasted from the second link. Needless to say the second link was written/compiled by someone who also couldn't "fact-check" as he has an area dedicated to toxicity of Chlorine. You know, that acid in your STOMACH HCl? That whole pH 0-1 area where the food gets melted down? Perhaps you could let me know sometime what F- will do at that pH, after your chemistry/toxicology degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydoc
For most people, it is easier to go with the flow and believe what is popular and prevalent. People used to believe the world was flat, too. Interesting stuff.
Your sources aren't facts, they are cobbled together by people trying to elicit a fear response. You don't understand the scientific method, and that's ok, there's a solution to that. Don't post on topics that you don't have any reliable information about. Also, don't vote, please, if you don't have a detailed understanding of the topic at hand.
And honestly, searching for "facts" that simply support your opinion is exactly what the viewers of Fox News do.
And for those that have argued that if a parent Y can't buy X toothpaste/brushes for their kid at the dollar store, well screw them. Merry Christmas to you too, gotta love that all these kind and generous people around the holidays, unwilling to fork over $2 on the water bill/month to reduce medicaid expenditures.
Love the myopic viewpoints of the average American...
The government often has to intervene with legislation when their constituents, some not of voting age, need a clearly reasonable and rational solution for a problem.
I prefer no government intervention where chemicals are being added to my body, or my childrens' without permission.
To put this 160 page draft document (I'm sure they are finishing this up over time) into some perspective, they suggest that a 4mg/L (ppm) concentration might be too high, and not because it is a toxin that is inducing all of these cancers and chemically caused diseases, but due to those who might have a propensity for fluoride binding to bone. This is a very small amount of people. They suggest that a more rigorous study be done at 2mg/L and that a 1mg/L concentration is fine.
According to https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33280.pdf - the Congressional Research Service report, page 4, plans on lowering the 4 mg/L even further because exposure to fluoride in our lives is increasing from other sources. Some people drink 2L a day, some more and others less. There is no way to monitor or control water intake for each person. Groups can provide average usage numbers, but not individuals.
Infants under 6 months, according to the EPA should not drink formula made with water with fluoride. How many mothers know this and if they do, use unfluoridated water for their babies.
What fluoride amount is found in breast milk, if any? Like I said, there is no way to regulate the intake per person per day. Too many variables.
To be absolutely clear, people who have an opinion on chemistry, without extensive coursework, have a very limited understanding on how these processes work and when. If you have interest in chemistry, toxicology, or want to have something beyond a baseless opinion, they have these strange things called classes and they are even offered at community colleges...
I don't think I need to comment on the majority of the text here that you cut & pasted from the second link. Needless to say the second link was written/compiled by someone who also couldn't "fact-check" as he has an area dedicated to toxicity of Chlorine. You know, that acid in your STOMACH HCl? That whole pH 0-1 area where the food gets melted down? Perhaps you could let me know sometime what F- will do at that pH, after your chemistry/toxicology degree.
Play nice.
Your sources aren't facts, they are cobbled together by people trying to elicit a fear response. You don't understand the scientific method, and that's ok, there's a solution to that. Don't post on topics that you don't have any reliable information about. Also, don't vote, please, if you don't have a detailed understanding of the topic at hand.
I guess you're trying to be helpful, even though it comes across more as being assumptive, cranky, condescending and very patronizing.
And honestly, searching for "facts" that simply support your opinion is exactly what the viewers of Fox News do.
... and your "facts" are better because...?
Love the myopic viewpoints of the average American...
Wow. I gotta tell you, your assumptions about my background and accusations of plagerism really took me by surprise.
For the rest of you who praised Isotope-C14's scientific explanation, did you actually read ANY any of the source links presented here?
The intimations by Isotope-C14 that I am not qualified to tackle such a "scientific" subject is rather insulting. This is a public forum, after all, not a platform for scientific treatise presentations. The issue of whether or not to add fluoride (of any kind) to public drinking water (in particular Portland's) is decided on a local level and is not just for the few chemists on this board to weigh in.
He has a right to his opinions and sources as have I. The accusation that what I wrote was simply copied and pasted simply is not true. Rewritten, but not copied and pasted.
Let's stick to the topic of Fluoride in the water supply and leave personal attacks aside, shall we?
Onward:
Studies have shown that fluoride is much more effective if used directly on teeth - especially in children under the age of 14, not in drinking water. It can be applied in rinses, gels, toothpaste, etc...and is usually in the form of sodium fluoride (naFl). The chemical sodium silicofluoride (SiFs), the leftovers from the fertilizer industry, - THAT is (for the most part) going into our drinking water.
This link shows the results of a study (2001) led by Roger D. Masters,
a Dartmouth College Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller, Professor
of Government Emeritus, reported in an article that there was a higher uptake of lead in
children who drank water treated with sodium silicofluoride (SiFs)
Even more important is the type of fluoridation chemicals used. Toothpaste and other dental and medical products are all pharmaceutical grade - or NaFl (sodium flouoride). Most of the water supply is sodium silicofluoride (SiFs) - really two different animals. Calcium fluoride is the naturally occurring type and is 65 times less toxic than naFL.
Dr. Dean Murphy has written a well-researched book about this subject. You can purchase his book online. I think Amazon has it.."How Fluoride is Poisoning You.." -
I believe that when you choose to research any topic or belief, do so with an open mind and dig deep. Ask questions like, "who benefits?" "What if _____ was true?" "Is there a money trail?" "Where does it lead?" Some say, where there's smoke, there's fire.
There are innumerable health professionals who supported fluoride at one point, because it was what they were taught, but now, no longer do so. Why? What did they find out? etc.
Is fluoride "bad?" Some say, "yes," some say, "no". I just don't want to be forced to drink it in my public water supply. What would be better? Choice is better. Eating fresh fruits and vegetables is better. If I wanted to add fluoride to my oral health regimine, then I want to choose the type and application. That's better. Much better.
Wow. I gotta tell you, your assumptions about my background and accusations of plagerism really took me by surprise.
For the rest of you who praised Isotope-C14's scientific explanation, did you actually read ANY any of the source links presented here?
The intimations by Isotope-C14 that I am not qualified to tackle such a "scientific" subject is rather insulting. This is a public forum, after all, not a platform for scientific treatise presentations. The issue of whether or not to add fluoride (of any kind) to public drinking water (in particular Portland's) is decided on a local level and is not just for the few chemists on this board to weigh in.
He has a right to his opinions and sources as have I. The accusation that what I wrote was simply copied and pasted simply is not true. Rewritten, but not copied and pasted.
Let's stick to the topic of Fluoride in the water supply and leave personal attacks aside, shall we?
Onward:
Studies have shown that fluoride is much more effective if used directly on teeth - especially in children under the age of 14, not in drinking water. It can be applied in rinses, gels, toothpaste, etc...and is usually in the form of sodium fluoride (naFl). The chemical sodium silicofluoride (SiFs), the leftovers from the fertilizer industry, - THAT is (for the most part) going into our drinking water.
This link shows the results of a study (2001) led by Roger D. Masters,
a Dartmouth College Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller, Professor
of Government Emeritus, reported in an article that there was a higher uptake of lead in
children who drank water treated with sodium silicofluoride (SiFs)
Even more important is the type of fluoridation chemicals used. Toothpaste and other dental and medical products are all pharmaceutical grade - or NaFl (sodium flouoride). Most of the water supply is sodium silicofluoride (SiFs) - really two different animals. Calcium fluoride is the naturally occurring type and is 65 times less toxic than naFL.
Dr. Dean Murphy has written a well-researched book about this subject. You can purchase his book online. I think Amazon has it.."How Fluoride is Poisoning You.." -
I believe that when you choose to research any topic or belief, do so with an open mind and dig deep. Ask questions like, "who benefits?" "What if _____ was true?" "Is there a money trail?" "Where does it lead?" Some say, where there's smoke, there's fire.
There are innumerable health professionals who supported fluoride at one point, because it was what they were taught, but now, no longer do so. Why? What did they find out? etc.
Is fluoride "bad?" Some say, "yes," some say, "no". I just don't want to be forced to drink it in my public water supply. What would be better? Choice is better. Eating fresh fruits and vegetables is better. If I wanted to add fluoride to my oral health regimine, then I want to choose the type and application. That's better. Much better.
Considering the sentence about the award, in all caps, is exactly identical to that UKOPRP link, as well as the first sentence fragment, don't be too shocked.
You are not qualified to tackle a scientific topic, as you obviously don't understand the scientific method. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it puts you in the majority of people on the planet. The time in which the line is crossed, is when you start arguing a scientific process within a humanities framework.
Science is not about finding someone who says something that you agree with, and then having a spirited debate. This is not a discussion about whether or not we should send troops to Iraq, this is not an issue of whether or not we should implement a testing-reward system to leave no child behind.
This is strictly about what the data supports. The data does not support that fluoridation of water can be linked to anything aside from, at high concentrations, dental fluorosis (cosmetic), and bone accumulating fluoride (Unusual at all but the highest doses).
Can you explain the difference between something that is pharmaceutical grade and what grade that the Sodium Silicofluoride is for me? You claim there is a difference between the "animals" but since you list one grade, you must know what the post-process NaSiF grade is. As I mentioned before, what they are doing is a type of process optimization called recycling, and many fewer pounds of potential contaminants are being released into the environment due to this process. Chemical Engineers go through many years of training to do this and although not strict scientists, often have good training in the scientific method. More so than your innumerable health professionals, as many MD/DDS type individuals do not have a solid experimental science foundation. Many of them memorize what they need, and then move on to the more diagnostically relevant information.
Legitimate science is seldom for sale in book form, or at the very least, in the sensationalized titles you seem to find so easily. Why is it that a book titled "The Devil's Poison" is a good source for understanding fluoride's contribution to toxicology? Legitimate science will be more often titled something like: "The long-term effects of compound X on species Y". Notably as well, a DDS is not normally a scientist, and I can't find any links to what the author did for most of his life. A DDS tends to make money off of seeing patients, and a lot of it. Scientists tend to make next to nothing (often less than a middle-school teacher) and certainly are going to try to publish data that can be peer reviewed, so that they can apply for grants and private funding. I can only assume that your Dr. Murphy was a very bad dentist.
While arguments based on emotion will work on some people, it won't work on a scientist. As you say, this is a forum, but don't expect those of us that know more than you about a specific topic to sit idly by while you present alarmist and paranoid perspectives on a public health issue. The facts that I have presented here are not an opinion. They are credible, multiply supported in the literature, and are not outlined in a for-profit book.
Do I need to state the obvious regarding for-profit books? It seems to me you only follow the money trail when it supports your opinion. How do we know that these DDS-scientists (giggling) aren't trying to get fluoride removed so that their business is booming?
I have no idea how fresh fruits and rotten vegetables are a point of debate here. I suppose you probably don't think about how an apple is a year old when you find it at the market, or that when a cantaloupe recall is made, that they get taken away from both Whole Foods and Aldi simultaneously.
Is choice better? That depends on the choice, but due to my experiences with the level of human rationality, I tend to say no. I don't think people should have the choice to teach "intelligent design" in science classes. I don't think matters of public health should be left up to Jenny McCarthy. Sorry, but I don't want people who know significantly less than me, to be policy-makers. I don't want Lawyers who've never talked to a poor person to be allowed in congress.
But not to worry, when the evil fluoride conspiracy comes to a neighborhood near you, you can cancel your water service, and get a well, I suggest ones made of rock in a cylindrical shape, with a wooden handle and a bucket that can be cranked down into a deep pit where the natural water will be. You can even skip the chlorine and enjoy some of mother nature's natural friends, like dysentry, cholera, and shigella.
And thanks to all the rest of you for appreciation of my previous posts on this. As the economy gets worse, the poor kids suffer more, and anything we can do to help is at least something.
And good luck Portland, try to get fluoride common sense passed next time it comes up for a vote.
I agree with you on the science, and opposition is certainly bolstered by some dubious assertions.
But I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you suggest, particularly from a public policy POV.
Studies suggest the ideal range is 0.7-1.2 PPM, which in some places can be naturally occurring. In Portland, that's not the case. While I haven't been able to find specific data, the suggestion seems to be that the natural levels are somewhere between 0.2-0.4 PPM. So certainly deficient.
But you'd still need to establish two arguments:
1) that the 'marginal benefit' to public health in boosting local natural levels to 0.7-1.2 is practically and statistically significant relative to the cost, and
2) that you couldn't achieve health outcomes in some other manner that was superior and/or more cost effective.
Personally I found the city's cost projections ($5mil down for plant construction, $600k per year) to be somewhat optimistic. (Not to mention the council ruffled a lot of feathers with the way they moved this forward politically, which perhaps shouldn't matter, but in the court of public perception it does)
I agree fluoridation makes sense in a vacuum scientifically, but on the ground it's much more complex, particularly in a fiscal environment where the city is already looking for $25M in cuts for 2014. If the measure had been passed we'd be talking about $30M in cuts to other existing programs.
Just my opinion.
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.
