Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Medicine United States Science

Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water 314

An anonymous reader writes: Federal health officials Monday changed the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time since 1962, cutting by almost half the maximum amount of fluoride that should be added to drinking supplies. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the long-standing range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. The change is recommended because now Americans have access to more sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, than they did when fluoridation was first introduced in the United States,' Dr. Boris Lushniak, the deputy surgeon general, told reporters during a conference call.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @09:39AM (#49568525)

    It's finally time we embraced "The Big Book of British Smiles" on this side of the pond!

    • Re:It's finally time (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @10:03AM (#49568805)

      Britain has better dental health [fivethirtyeight.com] than the USA. But keep peddling that century old myth if it makes you feel better.

      • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @10:20AM (#49568947)

        Britain has better dental health [fivethirtyeight.com] than the USA. But keep peddling that century old myth if it makes you feel better.

        My wife is American and finds this particularly funny. When she came to the UK she had a lot of treatment that she could not have afforded in the USA, and our daughter has orthodontic treatment without charge - and some of her relatives who have had teeth removed because they could not afford treatment still make jokes about British teeth

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Lumpy ( 12016 )

          Here in the USA Dental health is looked at as a luxury. Dentists fight like hell to keep costs high and insurance crappy.

          It's a crime that most americans have almost no dental care they can afford. Yes most. you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            Dental health is a service provided by people who spend money to outfit dental clinics. Same as medical professionals. As such, the market dictates the availability and costs. Instead of the government, which is the way it should be. It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well, should be running healthcare and dental care. Just so a small minority of the population can afford something. Rather than provide services that only that small portion of th

            • Re:It's finally time (Score:4, Interesting)

              by xaxa ( 988988 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:13AM (#49569469)

              Dental health is a service provided by people who spend money to outfit dental clinics. Same as medical professionals. As such, the market dictates the availability and costs.

              Fire fighting service is [etc, etc].

              It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well,

              That's a very American viewpoint. In other countries, government functions well. In others, it does well with some things, and badly at others.

              Why should I have pay for someone to have a pretty smile??

              Because they'll pay for you to have something you'd argue isn't essential, like fire protection, food safety, fertility treatments, counselling, etc.

              Cataract surgery isn't covered until it affects ones ability to drive, not because someone just wants to see better.

              My grandma is booked for cataract surgery in May. She's still OK to drive, the medical benefit is currently justified for her mental health (she's lost confidence with worsening sight). It's free on the NHS.

              • by jythie ( 914043 )
                I suspect the reason so many people believe that the government does not 'function well' is that they do not understand what is function is. It is kinda like complaining how lousy a car is at sailing down a river. Of course it sucks at it, that isn't what it was designed for, and that job is already done well by boats.
            • Re:It's finally time (Score:5, Informative)

              by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:22AM (#49569559) Journal

              It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well, should be running healthcare and dental care.

              Tell that to the people of Norway,New Zealand,Japan,Belgium,United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and Israel, all of whom have had government run health care for at least 20 years, some going back as far as 1938.

              And most of those countries have higher-rated health care systems than the US and eleven of those countries have greater levels of economic freedom and social mobility than the US.

              So you might want to take your tired tropes to the back yard and put them out of their misery.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward

                The UK citizen pays a third per person for health care in comparison to a US citizen, there is 100% coverage of the population, and the health outcomes are better.

                Care to explain what's going wrong exactly?

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Penguinisto ( 415985 )

                Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot. This is largely due to the demographics of these nations, the fact that their defense budgets are largely carried by NATO/Treaty/aid/etc (read: the US is paying for and/or providing a very significant percentage of it, even if indirectly), immigration laws are uber-strict (which cuts down on the flood of low/no-income users of the system), and because each has a relatively low population that is densely packed when compared to the US (which means you don't

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Anonymous Coward

                  Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot.

                  That's just incorrect. The British NHS, for example, costs 6.5% of GDP. In the US, we spend over 17% of GDP on health. It's astounding how little value we get for all that extra cost. Then you think of all the layers of bureaucracy in all the insurance providers and some of it makes sense.

                • Re:It's finally time (Score:4, Informative)

                  by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @02:38PM (#49571403) Journal

                  Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot.

                  That's horseshit. Remember, the US, the largest economy in the world has been spending a significantly larger percentage of their GDP on health care than the other countries prior to 2012 (last statistics I could find) and getting poorer outcomes.

              • by kyrsjo ( 2420192 )

                While I agree with your point, I would like to point out that dental care is not public in Norway after you are 18 (unless your teeth are falling out from a medical condition / cancer treatment etc.).

              • some going back as far as 1938

                Germany started in 1883 [wikipedia.org]. It was implemented by that great liberal, champion of the common people, and just really nice guy, Otto von Bismark.

            • You have mistaken the role of government in healthcare. Government, by mandate of the people, already requires treatment of acutely ill individuals, and nobody is arguing to change that. The question is then how this is paid for (mandated insurance or socialized medicine), what is more cost-effective (in terms of preventative care), and is earlier treatment sufficiently more humane to be preferable in some cases? Also your "small minority of the population" is simply not small. A good 30-50% of American

            • Re:It's finally time (Score:5, Informative)

              by Ramze ( 640788 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:48AM (#49569761)

              That is such a naive post, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll bypass the "government doesn't do anything well" BS (firefighters, US Mail, EMS services, public water/sewer systems, uncountable other examples prove you wrong)... But, apparently, every industrialized country other than the USA either has free healthcare or a hybrid system like Australia with a combination of free care plus private.

              Let's move on to this mythical health "market" you mention. Markets require competition to work. Most areas only have one or two hospitals within the geographic region which can provide most health care services. That's not a free market... it's a monopoly or oligopoly. Monopolies and Oligopolies require government oversight because they tend to abuse their power. Granted, the Dentistry market is far more competitive than say, thoracic surgery.

              Still, Insurance isn't a market either. It's also an oligopoly situation where you have to have one of the major carriers to have health providers ACCEPT the coverage you have -- and picking an insurance carrier may give you perks with one hospital or other health care provider, but none with another, so this also limits your market choices. Health care providers are not required to accept your insurance.

              So, let's talk about pricing - you won't find it listed most places. It's complex... it's deceitful - intentionally. If you have no insurance, you have one price. If you have insurance, it's another price. Then, when billed, you pay a different amount and the insurance company pays the rest -- but not actually. You see, the insurance company negotiates the prices. Say you have a bill for $100K. You pay $5K, the insurance company pays $45K, and the rest just goes unpaid, yet considered to be paid in full. Another individual who has no insurance gets the bill for the full amount - OR if the physician knows in advance you have no insurance will sometimes negotiate a different price - sometimes much lower than what they'd have gotten from the insurance company.

              Doctors HATE the insurance companies. They have to hire lots of staff for medical coding to report correctly to insurance companies, fight with them over the billing, and often get paid late -if at all. Doctors also have high malpractice insurance bills and high medical school loan bills. Many other countries don't have these issues -- they even send their doctors to medical school for next to nothing - imagine that! It drives the cost of being a doctor down, increases supply of doctors and drives the costs of medical care down along with it.

              The USA medical system is a mess. I'm not a doctor myself, but I have many family and friends in the medical field. They would LOVE a single payer system to simplify everything. They could have less staff because there's no need to deal with multiple insurance companies, less confusion on pricing, and more customers as everyone is covered. Government health insurance doesn't have to be government run healthcare - just insurance. Why have thousands of companies complicating everything when one agency could give you insurance right out of your paycheck with your taxes (just like a company benefit would), and you're insured everywhere for everything except cosmetic surgeries beyond dental. But, I digress.

              I'm not sure what dental plans you're concerned about. Most don't cover things like crowns and Hollywood veneers. Most cover regular checkups and fillings - maybe braces for kids if you pay extra. That's not a huge burden on the USA economy... not with 15 Trillion in debt - mostly spent on the military.

              • "mostly spent on the military."

                Although military spending is a nice chunk of the federal budget, most of it is spent on Social Security and Medicare:

                https://static.nationalpriorit... [nationalpriorities.org]

                • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

                  Although military spending is a nice chunk of the federal budget, most of it is spent on Social Security and Medicare:

                  That's a point some people have been pushing hard to get out there, but those programs are both funded separately from the rest of the budget so they are really not relevant when looking at spending/debt.

          • by GNious ( 953874 )

            Head to Mexico - just across the border dental care seems quite cheap, and often pretty capable.

          • by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:53AM (#49569791)
            That's a load of crap. Dental insurance (even without an employer plan) is incredibly cheap and covers a thorough cleaning every six months. If you skip the cleanings (which you won't be charged extra for, just the usual monthly insurance payment) then yes, you'll need to get expensive procedures done - but that's your own damn fault for skipping preventative maintenance that wouldn't cost you anything extra.
          • you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.

            58% of Americans have a household income less than $65k.

          • by smithmc ( 451373 ) *
            What's affordable? IIRC mine costs me like $20 a month, and that includes twice-yearly checkups and cleanings and X-rays, plus any work I need done e.g. fillings etc. (except oral surgery which would go under my medical insurance). Doesn't include orthodontia though.
          • Here in the USA Dental health is looked at as a luxury. Dentists fight like hell to keep costs high and insurance crappy.

            It's a crime that most americans have almost no dental care they can afford. Yes most. you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.

            No kidding.....I owe over $1400 to my dentist AFTER insurance paid last year due to several crowns and root canals I had to have done. Luckily he is very good at working with you and setting up payment plans that you can easily deal with. But I would rather not have that debt hanging over my head if dental insurance was a little better.

        • What? You guys must be anomalies, because every single medieval movie set in Britain I've seen has lots of people missing teeth.
        • by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:52AM (#49569779)

          and our daughter has orthodontic treatment without charge

          I have to be "that guy". You were charged - and quite a bit for it, they just didn't hand you a bill after you received the service. When you factor in all taxes (VAT, fuel tax, TV tax, income tax, NHS tax, etc) even the lowest tax bracket in the UK is paying roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

          • by Chrisq ( 894406 )

            and our daughter has orthodontic treatment without charge

            I have to be "that guy". You were charged - and quite a bit for it, they just didn't hand you a bill after you received the service. When you factor in all taxes (VAT, fuel tax, TV tax, income tax, NHS tax, etc) even the lowest tax bracket in the UK is paying roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

            Rubbish The lowest tax bracket is zero and accounts for income up to £10,600 in 2015/16, from £10,000 in 2014/15. In terms of indirect tax, VAT is not charged on children's clothes or "non luxuary" food, and is 5% for domestic heating and electicity. There are a number of other exemptions and it is on 20% for the rest.

      • by king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @10:54AM (#49569299)
        The reason that Americans say Brits have bad teeth is because of whiteness and straightness, neither of which has much to do with number of cavities. There, the mystery is solved. Also, there's the distinct possibility that Brits today care more about their dental health because it was so shitty, either in aesthetics or health, for so long.
        • Re:It's finally time (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:06AM (#49569393) Journal
          There was a study posted on Slashdot about this myth a few years ago. They concluded that Americans care more about their teeth because good dental care is expensive and so is a status symbol. Having few teeth is one of the stereotypes of poor/stupid people in the US. Middle class and aspiring middle class people in the US spend money on their teeth (cosmetically, at least) because if they don't then they look poor. For people in the UK, anyone can afford good dental care (for a while, it was easier for very poor people to because a lot of dentists weren't taking new NHS customers except under duress and people on certain forms of income support had guaranteed treatment), so going to the dentist is just seen as a chore and often slipped down priorities.
      • Hah, you though Americans made fun of the Brits because their teeth were unhealthy. How ignorant. No, Americans make fun of Brits because their teeth are ugly and obviously so.
  • by Flavianoep ( 1404029 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @09:40AM (#49568551)
    Too little, too late , I've already started the attack on the Commies.
    ---Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper
  • by Anonymous Coward

    We've found it takes far less to mind control the population, so we figure we should save some money.

  • Gen. Ripper (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Into a grotesque mutant.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    .. about dental health, they limit the amount of Corn Syrup, and HFCS that exists throughout the US food supply!

    Sugar is still sugar! It doesn't have to be white and bleached, for it to decay your teeth!

    • I realize this is correlation vs causation but have their been any studies linking obesity with the widespread use of corn syrup in place of real sugar?

      I know I prefer the taste of soda made with real sugar vs the same brand made with corn syrup. I also have realized since I switched back to a "throwback" run of my favorite soda I am drinking less soda overall. At night I have 2 12 ounce sodas with real sugar vs a few years ago where I'd have 4 - 5 a night of the corn syrup stuff. A typical weekend day and
      • I realize this is correlation vs causation but have their been any studies linking obesity with the widespread use of corn syrup in place of real sugar?

        When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%. There are two main problems:

        1) HFCS replaced Dextrose as the main industrial sweetener, which vastly increased fructose consumption

        2) Overall added sugar levels have risen dramatically

        The problem is that fructose can only be processed in the liver and when you get too much it increases triglyceride levels in the bloodstream which helps to create leptin resistance, which in t

        • When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%.

          HFCS 55 - one used in sodas, is 55 parts fructose, 42 parts glucose.
          Sucrose - plain sugar, is 50 parts fructose and 50 parts glucose.

          Our brains only measure the glucose intake, cause that is the sugar we start burning the moment it hits the bloodstream. We even absorb it directly through the oral cavity - hence oral glucose gel for diabetics.
          When we hit optimal glucose the brain tells the body it had enough.

          So, if optimal glucose is (some) 100 parts, that means that using sucrose, one would take in 100 part

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Actually, products like crisps (potato chips in the US) are probably worse than even that. It's the metabolisation and fermentation of the food in your teeth that produces the acids the decay them.

      And bits of a starchy product like potato stuck in/on your teeth hang around a lot longer and in lot greater quantities than anything you might swig from a can (which washes over your teeth briefly, is swallowed, then stimulates saliva production, all within a few seconds).

      You know what's worse than all this stuf

    • by itzly ( 3699663 )

      If people don't want to drink sugar or corn syrup, there are plenty of alternatives available.

    • Who can afford better lobbyists, the ag industry or the dental?

  • If theres Floride in drinking water wouldn't it have to be listed on the label of the bottle?

    And you can buy distilled water in gallons for about the same price as drinking water. 89c or so.

    I know there are some people that don't buy bottled water, instead they have a reverse osmosis filter. I think that removes floride and cloride and other salts...

  • The original theory was that by putting fluoride into drinking water, it'll get into developing teeth, which are chemically altered to be harder. Then they figured out that that doesn't happen; it just reacts directly with teeth in the mouth. But we have fluoride toothpaste that does just as well and doesn't get swallowed quite as much. Then there's the issue of toxicity, which apparently is essentially nil except for people with thyroid problems, where the fluorine can displace iodine.

    The conspiracy the

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      which slows people down and makes them more docile, and a docile populace is what governments want, because they rock the boat less.

      The function of which has largely been taken over by chemtrails.

  • "now Americans have access to more sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses" I am pretty sure we have had these for decades now...
  • Oh on! There taking the fluoride out of our drinking water! It's a government conspiracy to reduce oral hygiene in rural areas. This will help prop up the 1% by increasing the wealth disparity. It will also help kill off the poor by allowing more bacteria to grow in the water. not do mention deaths from oral infections. Those bastards won't stop until were all dead!
  • by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @10:43AM (#49569173) Journal

    I couldn't find a better map, but fluoride can always be found in meaningful amounts naturally in groundwater.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... [wikimedia.org]

    • Not everywhere. In Utah for example a couple smaller cities in the southern end of the state have naturally fluoridated water but the rest of the state has to fluoridate. Those two cities with natural supplies had a much lower incidence of cavities than the rest of the state until artificial fluoridation started. Now the levels are about the same. My father was born and lived the first few years of his life in one of those cities. He has never had a cavity. Me, not so lucky, I've paid for more than a
      • Yeah my brother and sister were 5 years older than me and didn't get flouridated water and had many cavities- I didn't get one until I was 17. A difference though between meaningful and enough ;-)

    • I couldn't find a better map, but fluoride can always be found in meaningful amounts naturally in groundwater.

      I use a RO filter, you insensitive clod! I don't even care what's in my water, unless it's so severe I can't bathe in it. And I use a spin-down filter, a spun filter, and a carbon filter before that happens anyway.

      It's sad that you need to filter your municipal drinking water before you can drink it, though, especially when that's in part because they added nasty crap to it.

  • Just get rid of it (Score:3, Informative)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:12AM (#49569461) Journal

    Fluoride in water always sounds good to people who want "better smiles" but it's 99% a waste of the money spent:

    1. The version of fluoride they put in the water (Hexafluorosilicic acid) is not shown to help with dental decay issues. Sodium Fluoride is the chemical the ADA studies and recommends for toothpaste and dental products.

    2. Hexafluorosilicic acid is a product manufactured from industrial waste in the aluminum industry and is considered a toxic substance. If industry hadn't conned municipalities in to putting it in the water supply as a "fluoride source" it would cost them a good chunk of change to dispose of the stuff. (Look up ALCOA and fluoride).

    3. Consumption of unfiltered tap water, I'd say, is just about zero. I know no-one that drinks any substantive quantity of tap water that the fluoride content in it would ever have any clinical effect. Almost any filter designed to remove impurities will remove the fluoride from tap water.

    4. Even if people were drinking only tap water, over 95% of the water used in an average municipality is very consumed by any living thing. It washes cars, waters lawns, bathes people, flushes toilets, cools industrial equipment, etc.

    5. When I had this discussion with my town a few years ago asking them to provide numbers they told my it cost $63,000 a year in product and personnel to run the fluoridation system for 29.5 million gallons of potable water. That sounds like very little, .2 cents ($.002) per thousand gallons or an average of about $.30 per family per month. Sure when you make the numbers small it doesn't look like much, but think about what $63,000 a year gets if directed an other programs in a town. Another teacher or two? Extended library hours on the weekends? A new after school program?

    6. No-one, I mean I searched hard, has studied the rate of change in a community pre and post fluoridation of tap water since an initial study of Grand Rapids and Muskegon in 1945. A study that was ended prematurely but touted as a success anyway despite its very unscientific lack of compensating for outside factors not related to the study itself and the "control" changing programs during the study.

    7. The Grand Rapids "study" was based upon Sodium Fluoride, which again is not what we put in the water today. So even if the result was positive the hexafluorosilicic acid used today has never been studied for prevention of tooth decay in municipal water supplies and is a very different chemical compound just like Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are very different chemicals. Search for

    8. There is no version of any type of fluoride that is indicated by the FDA for the prevention of tooth decay. The municipal water companies are adding an non-FDA approved and unregulated drug to our water supply. The other substance added to water supplies (chlorine to be simple) is approved by the FDA for water and food sanitation.

    As you can see, there is simply no supporting truth to the argument that fluoride in municipal water prevents tooth decay. It does cost a significant amount of money, and almost no-one drinks the fluoridated water anyway.

    Do your own research. You will come to the same conclusion: municipal water fluoridation is based on lies, it's a waste of money, it doesn't work and it may actually cause harm to public health.

    • by dwillden ( 521345 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:56AM (#49569809) Homepage
      Funny, medical experts disagree with you. So please post your training so we can compare it with that of the deputy Surgeon General.
      • Logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

        You can look up his claims and either agree with them or not, but you didn't do that at all.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 )

          Fallacy fallacy, appeal to fallacy.

          I suppose this means I win. [lmgtfy.com]

          The anti-fluoride people are cranks and we're under no obligation to entertain them. Like creationists, merely arguing with them gives them more credibility than they had before.

          • Why is it the "cranks" are all asking for scientific study or proof and the "sane" ones are all saying "trust we know it works, because we know" and quoting each other in support?

            Do you know that for that $63,000 a year you could provide fluoride rinse or tablets to every at-risk kid in a population about 3x the size served by municipal water fluoridation? The rinses and tables have been studied and proven effective and they all use sodium fluoride.

    • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      3. Consumption of unfiltered tap water, I'd say, is just about zero.

      Interesting - that sounds like a regional thing. Over here in the UK it's not unheard of to filter your tap water but it's pretty rare.

    • by Jack Griffin ( 3459907 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2015 @06:43AM (#49575409)

      1. The version of fluoride they put in the water

      Who is they? In my country we use different types of flouride depending on location.

      2. Hexafluorosilicic acid is a product manufactured from industrial waste in the aluminum industry and is considered a toxic substance. If industry hadn't conned municipalities in to putting it in the water supply as a "fluoride source" it would cost them a good chunk of change to dispose of the stuff. (Look up ALCOA and fluoride).

      Lies. It's only becomes an issue in gas form, which is going to be hard when saturated 1 ppm in water.

      3. Consumption of unfiltered tap water, I'd say, is just about zero. I know no-one that drinks

      Good thing that science uses techniques other than your personal experience. This [allaboutwater.org] research found at least 25% of bottled water contained tap water. How does that fit into your experience now?

      4. Even if people were drinking only tap water, over 95% of the water used in an average municipality is very consumed by any living thing. It washes cars, waters lawns, bathes people, flushes toilets, cools industrial equipment, etc.

      And?

      5. When I had this discussion with my town a few years ago asking them to provide numbers they told my it cost $63,000 a year

      You didn't mention how many people in your town. If $63000 save 60 people's teeth from rotting then I'd say it's a net gain. Average cost for fluoridation is $1 per person per year. Trivial when you consider the cost of dental care.

      6. No-one, I mean I searched hard, has studied the rate of change in a community pre and post fluoridation of tap water

      Ask and you shall receive: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/e... [nsw.gov.au]

      7. The Grand Rapids "study" was based upon Sodium Fluoride, which again is not what we put in the water today. So even if the result was positive the hexafluorosilicic acid used today has never been studied for prevention of tooth decay in municipal water supplies and is a very different chemical compound just like Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are very different chemicals. Search for

      So use another study instead, or better, conduct your own.

      8. There is no version of any type of fluoride that is indicated by the FDA for the prevention of tooth decay. The municipal water companies are adding an non-FDA approved and unregulated drug to our water supply. The other substance added to water supplies (chlorine to be simple) is approved by the FDA for water and food sanitation.

      As you can see, there is simply no supporting truth to the argument that fluoride in municipal water prevents tooth decay. It does cost a significant amount of money, and almost no-one drinks the fluoridated water anyway.

      Do your own research. You will come to the same conclusion: municipal water fluoridation is based on lies, it's a waste of money, it doesn't work and it may actually cause harm to public health.

      $1 per person is not significant. You probably spent more on your membership fees to the Tinfoil Hat Convention.

  • by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @11:29AM (#49569621)

    I believe back in the 90's activists in some U.S. cities got their cities to stop adding fluoride to the supplies. Bad mineral exchanges immediately started to occur in the piping because of the accumulated minerals in the pipes which included a fluoride component started reacting with the water that no longer contained fluoride causing the water to become contaminated by minerals other than just fluoride. The water not only tasted bad, it was determined that it was not safe to drink.

    It takes decades for the minerals in the piping to accumulate and it will take decades to slowly taper fluoride away if we want to avoid unintended consequences. I know the mineral content of water varies widely across supply sources so some cities may have no related problems and some could have severe problems.

  • How about we cut down on the benzene in our drinking water first?

  • Look at the kind of thing this is doing to our drinking water. [youtube.com]

    We have to get the message out about this! Fluoride and other pollutants are making our water look like unicorn piss.

  • ...contrails are for more effective, and cheaper too!
  • My hometown was guilty of too much fluoride. Thankfully I missed out on the horrible brown fluoride stains that a lot of other people seemed to have. There is such a thing as too much. My teeth were mostly developed before I moved there, but I do have just a hint of the white streaks of mild fluorosis.

  • I'm more concerned about this where I live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov] They have switched over a majority of municipalities to chloramine from chlorine and there is a good body of evidence it can do really bad things. Not directly, but by interacting chemically in different ways than chlorine did.
  • Since nobody drinks tapwater anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Multics is security spelled sideways.

Working...