Fluoride in tap water

chocolatechipcookies

bonnie wrote: »

Have you actually read up on fluoride. Apparently hitler used it to control the birth rate.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: That's just too much

chocolatechipcookies

If it's so bad, why do all children in the US get fluoride treatments at the dentist up until the age of 18? Ugh, the stuff tasted awful. You had to sit there with the stuff in a mouth guard like thing for 5 minutes. Why is it in toothpastes? Why do dentists recommend it?

It is not bad for you.

Toothsmith

I heard a brilliant rule the other day on the radio.

If you are engaged in a debate, then the first person to invoke the name of Hitler, or, the first person to use the phrase "Thin end of the wedge" automatically looses!

I think it should be applied on MSE!

Toothsmith

chocolatechipcookies wrote: »

If it's so bad, why do all children in the US get fluoride treatments at the dentist up until the age of 18? Ugh, the stuff tasted awful. You had to sit there with the stuff in a mouth guard like thing for 5 minutes. Why is it in toothpastes? Why do dentists recommend it?

It is not bad for you.

I wouldn't hold up what US dentists do as 'Gold Standard'. 60-70% of their water supply is fluoridated anyway, so doing fluoride treatments in the surgery are probably more to do with earning money than improving oral health.

tbs624

laurajayne wrote: »

I was born in Essex - but moved to Hartlepool not long after I was born...my parents had no idea about the fluoride in the water, and nobody told them to stop the drops. However, it is interesting that my little sister (by six years, and born up north) also has mild fluoride staining, that was just from the toothpaste and water.

Thanks for posting about your experience with fluorosis.

One of the problems with the proposals for putting a standard dose in the public drinking water supply is that there is no way of knowing what amount of fluoride anyone is receiving from any other sources.

Toothsmith

tbs624 wrote: »

One of the problems with the proposals for putting a standard dose in the public drinking water supply is that there is no way of knowing what amount of fluoride anyone is receiving from any other sources.

True enough, but if it were in the water supply at 1ppm, there would be no need for any other sources.

The worst fluorosis I've ever seen was in 2 sisters who's parents had been a bit overenthusiatic with the drops & tablets - in a non fluoridated area.

That needed veneers on the 4 upper incisors for both girls.

If it were in the water, no - one would need tablets and drops, and luoride in toothpaste could also be reduced.

Then - the only possible problem would be the 6mnt-3yr olds drinking more than 10-20 cups of tea a day!

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

True enough, but if it were in the water supply at 1ppm, there would be no need for any other sources.

I think we discussed the fact that fluoride is present in lots of other things a few posts back , and that different people drink different amounts of fluid. And of course if those with tooth decay did actually drink water instead of fizzy, sugary pop there'd be no need to inflict this substance ( not tested on humans) on everyone's via the drinking supplies.

Toothsmith

The above was a perfectly reasonable post, and point of view - UNTIL you stuck that little bit in brackets!

What on earth do you mean not tested on humans????

Present in many natural water supplies, where the first observations of fluorosis were made, and very soon after the low levels of decay were noticed. Been in the USAs water for decades, and Australias and a few cities in this country.

This is not some wild theory about to be inflicted on the population from a standing start.

It's a safe and effective tried and tested public health measure.

geordie_joe

Anyone live in Southampton?

http://devel.dailyecho.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2057262.mostviewed.health_chiefs_should_resign_over_fluoride.php

tbs624

Please stop peddling the fallacy that what will be used to pollute our drinking water supplies is something benign and natural. Neither sodium fluorosilicate nor fluorosilicic acid have been tested and passed as safe for human consumption, in any country.

For the public to be able to vote on this issue they need to be in possession of the truth, not the deceptions fed to us time and time again by the powerful pro-fluoridation lobby, endorsed by those members of the dental profession who regurgitate without challenge what they are fed as they progress through dental schools.

Let’s see a full account of exactly how these substances used for water fluoridation are produced and let’s have a full account of the promotion costs, details of inducements offered for fluoride promotion, and full details of who funds the pro-lobby ( the phospate fertiliser companies, the sugar producers, our very own Government because they can’t get a grip on the NHS….??)

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that less than 5% of the world population has an artificially-fluoridated water supply. As mentioned in a previous post, many of those who initially had artifical fluoridation have later stopped adding it to the water: many other countries have stated their intention not to fluoridate, and where countries do currently have it there is pressure for it to be discontinued.

Water fluoridation has not been proved to be either safe or effective: however, topical application of fluoride may be helpful for those who have poor diets and inadequate dental care and is readily available.

What’s the saying “the solution to pollution is dilution” ? IMO for the pollution to be diluted in everyone’s drinking water is an unacceptable totalitarian measure.