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.
It's finally time (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Britain has better dental health [fivethirtyeight.com] than the USA. But keep peddling that century old myth if it makes you feel better.
Re:It's finally time (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was to show there are many options between "everything" and "nothing" provided by the state. I don't really care to discuss it further.
(PS "counselling" is correct English.)
Re:It's finally time (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's finally time (Score:5, Funny)
Ayn Rand used meth, not pot.
Re:It's finally time (Score:4, Funny)
That explains the teeth...
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Head to Mexico - just across the border dental care seems quite cheap, and often pretty capable.
Re:It's finally time (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.
58% of Americans have a household income less than $65k.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's finally time (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's finally time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's finally time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: It's finally time (Score:3)
Bodyly fluids (Score:4, Funny)
---Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper
Re: (Score:2)
SHIT you bastard...I thought I caught this story's title early enough to be the first Ripper quote...I salute you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I salute you and your superior timing, General.
Purity
Of
Essence
Peace
On
Earth
Re: (Score:2)
At ease, soldier.
After decades of research (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
Jenny McCarthy Says It Turned Her Kid (Score:2, Funny)
Into a grotesque mutant.
Re:Jenny McCarthy Says It Turned Her Kid (Score:4, Funny)
No, he got that from her.
If they were really concerned... (Score:2, Informative)
.. 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!
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Yes it does make a difference. (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If people don't want to drink sugar or corn syrup, there are plenty of alternatives available.
Re: (Score:2)
Who can afford better lobbyists, the ag industry or the dental?
Drinking water? (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
They put fluoride in tap water, not bottled water.
Where do you think bottled water comes from? Notice how almost none of them say "spring water" anymore when pretty much all of them used to? That's because they come from public water sources, just like your tap.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"They put fluoride in tap water, not bottled water."
But who drinks tap water?
You brush your teeth with it, shower with it, and use it to do the laundry, but you wouldn't drink it.
(unless you have a filter)
Re: (Score:2)
But who drinks tap water?
Me. I drink lots of New York City tap water... At my office in Brooklyn I only drink tap water, just go to the kitchen sink, let it run for a minute, then fill up my cup. Everyone else drinks the bottled water we get, but to me it tastes like a plastic bottle.
At home in Manhattan, I keep a few bottles of water in the fridge and refill them from the tap...
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, European here. Tap water is heavily legally regulated. It has higher quality standards than bottled water.
Why drink bottled water?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that most people have enough salt in their diet that this isn't a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't drink substantial amounts of water, my standard drink is 50% Gatorade, 50% Mt Dew Throwback.
Re: (Score:2)
Regular tap water or bottled water doesn't have much salt in it either. I have a bottle of water here, and it says that it has 3 mg/liter of sodium, while a typical sports drink has around 8500 mg/liter.
Unless you drink a bucket in one sitting, drinking distilled water is fine.
Fluoride in drinking water isn't necessary (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding lead in the water, you don't know the half of it. People harp on all the wrong contaminants. It's like this bullshut about vaccines and autism. Two (!) cases involving autism and vaccines have gone to court, and in both cases, the "victim" had some preexisting condition. The fact is, the really horrible American diet, with excessive sugar and pesticides and all kids of other crap, has far more impact on developing autism symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
now Americans have access to more sources (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, don't want to rush to undo the thing you rushed to do...
Government Conspiracy. (Score:2)
Just for context (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
spot on!
Re:Just get rid of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Just get rid of it (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Decades of fouride tapering needed (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Horizontal Fracturing (Score:2)
How about we cut down on the benzene in our drinking water first?
Not before time (Score:2)
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.
New research shows that... (Score:2)
It's about time (Score:2)
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.
Chloramine and lead pipes! (Score:2)
Why (Score:2)
Since nobody drinks tapwater anyway, it doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its about time (Score:5, Insightful)
"Out of a population of about three-fourths of a billion, under 14 million people in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country
You might ask yourself why you've embraced a myth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe banned Fluoride in drinking water since at least the 1980's.
And all their teeth fell out! ;) Just kidding, they got refrigeration too.
The biggest risk is that fluoride is not fluoride. Sodium fluoride dissociates well, but most water supplies use silicofluorides that don't, and they cause heavy metals [dartmouth.edu] to cross the blood-brain barrier because the silicofluoride compounds interact biologically [globalresearch.ca].
The dominant fluoridation chemical is actually toxic waste from fertilizer plant smokestack scrubbers [fluoridealert.org] that w
Re: (Score:2)
"And those problems don't even touch on osteoporosis"
Which fluoride is used as a therapeutic treatment for. The smart money would be on taking other minerals as well. Fluoride by itself just increases the rate of bone fixin' you need minerals in the blood so it has something to fix with.
Did you mean: fluoride osteoporosis
Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis
BL Riggs, SF Hodgson, WM O'Fallon - New England journal , 1990 - Mass Medical Soc
Abstract Although
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention people who are comfortable in their ignorance
Re: (Score:2)
Ripper: Mandrake?
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have, Jack.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. S
Re:Its about time (Score:4, Informative)
[Citation required]
Don't conflate "some European countries" with "the whole of Europe including the UK", for example.
Re:This is going to be fun (Score:4, Informative)
Conspiratards are already typing off their fingers.
Perhaps the only conspiracy here is ignorance.
There are already quite a few areas in the US that removed fluoride from the water supply. Many are likely not even aware if their local county does or not.
So that explains Baltimore! (Score:3)
Re: This is going to be fun (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is going to be fun (Score:5, Funny)
Conspiratards are already typing off their fingers.
At least they're not going on about attacking the communists over their precious bodily fluids...
Re: (Score:3)
Too much fluoride causes tooth discoloration (fluorosis). It's harmless but unsightly.
But that aside, I wonder what's less expensive: Fluoridation programs, or dental treatment for the extra problems that would arise from stopping fluoridation. That would be an interesting study to thumb through...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Handling of the HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID is difficult. It eats through everything, even glass eventually. Tanks need replacement regularly, you have to wear hazmat suits when working around it... Go ahead get a little bit on you... it burns like hell and cant be neutralized.
This is the primary reason coupled with the fact that most kids have easy access to fluoride rinses and toothpaste. No reason to go with a preventative dones and scale back to a maintenance dosage.
Plus the crap is getting expensive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who posted junk about MMR vaccinations causing autism was also fired.
Should we believe them too, just to be contrary to expectations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the pseudoscience nutcases who'll cite this as "proof" that fluoridated water is toxic to our chakras or something.
What is the difference between a crackpot spouting nonsense and a skeptic spouting ad hominem nonsense? Neither activity appears to communicate any useful information of any kind.