Return to the Organic Gardening Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Posted by Komputernut Twilight Zone (My Page) on
Tue, Jul 13, 04 at 21:50

Ok, I admit it....The topic was an eye catcher, but stick around, some of you may find out that brushing with "Colgate" (or any other fluoride toothpaste) my be just as harmful as Lead.

My wife and I recently had a baby (another admission, she did most of the work). Our baby is now almost 7 months old and cute as a button. Anyway....

I noticed my wife had bought fluoridated "baby water" since there is no fluoride in our cities water. For no reason at all I decided to do a little research on Fluoride. What I found was appaling to say the least.

First, what is Fluoride?

Fluoride is an element from the halogen group, as are iodide and chloride. It is commonly added to the water supply as hydrofluosilicic acid, silicofluoride or sodium fluoride. Fluoride is also found as an additive in toothpastes and some mouthwashes, as a tooth decay preventive ingredient.

Why is floride used?

Fluoride is used to fight tooth decay in children. The key initial studies purporting to demonstrate its effectiveness as an anti-cavity fighting compound were performed back in the 1940s.Those studies, conducted in Grand Rapids, MI in 1945, in Newburgh, NY in 1945, in Brantford, Ontario in 1945, and in Evanston, IL in 1947, are now being called into question. According to Dr. Philip Sutton, author of "The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation" *A Factual Book, Lorne, Australia, 1996), these studies are actually of dubious scientific quality.

-From Mary Shomon,
Your Guide to Thyroid Disease.

So, what's so bad about Fuoride already?

Here are a few excerpts I found...

Fluoride has been linked to many health problems:
- Bone and oral cancers in animals and humans.
- An ability to inhibit the DNA repair enzyme system.
- It accelerates tumor growth.
- It inhibits the immune system.
- Linked to Thyroid Disease
- It causes genetic damage in a number of different cell lines and induces melanotic tumors, fibrosarcomas, etc. Other tumors and cancers strongly indicate that fluoride has a generalized effect of increasing them overall. According to our estimates, over 10,000 people in the United States die of cancer each year due to fluoridation of public drinking water.

The Deadly Costs of Fluoridation: When a claimed 20% decrease in tooth decay is compared to a 600% increase in bone cancer or a 41% increase in hip fractures, when the cost of a tooth filling is compared to the cost of a hip fracture or cancer treatment, it is obvious that the human and economic costs of fluoridation are staggering.
- Health Action Network

The Overwhelming Evidence that Fluoride Weakens Bones: Dr. John Lee showed that "...7 out of 10 recent studies show a clear correlation between bone fractures and water fluoridation. One of these studies involved 560,000 women over 65. The size of this study completely obliterates the few reports of small populations that showed no correlation."
- The Fluoride Report, September, 1994

Fluoride has never received FDA approval and wouldn't pass if it were subjected to the FDA's standards of safety and effectiveness. It's more toxic than lead by the EPA's standards and accumulates in the body. The maximum allowable lead in drinking water: 0.015 mg/liter; the maximum allowable for fluoride: 4.000 mg/liter.
- Health Action Network

The fluoride in your water is actually toxic waste left over after the manufacture of aluminum and chemical fertilizers.
- Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, the Ageing Factor

For those that rationalize and think to themselves, "I brush with it, but I don't swallow it".....

Use Non-Fluoride Toothpaste: Fluoride in toothpaste is absorbed through the lining of the mouth, and in only one or two brushings, a milligram of fluoride enters your body.
- Health Action Network

You organic garding folks will love this tidbit (No Im not a gardener, unless chia pet counts)

Juice Drinks Contain Dangerous Levels of Fluoride: 42% of prepared juices contain toxic levels of fluoride. Grape juice is especially bad because of the fluoride-containing insecticides used on grapes.
- Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

The list goes on and on, there are hundres of sorces of information about the negitive effects of fuoride, but I have yet to see one non-ADA linked study that says otherwise...

Needless to say, my family will no longer be using fluoride toothpaste, and will never recieve Fluoride treatments. I have to live with the fact that fluoridated water touches so much of the food that I eat that its almost impossible to avoid, but at least I can limit a few of the main contributors.....

Comments?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Just took my 14 yr. old to get his teeth cleaned yesterday and was livid when they said he had a flouride treatment along with two side and one panoramic x-ray (normal procedure at this office when getting your teeth cleaned). I have never had to go through either of those procedures when getting my teeth cleaned without specifically asking for them. I told the receptionist not to ever do that again without my prior knowledge. She looked at me like I was on drugs and started copping an attitude saying "You get more radiation from a microwave oven." to which I replied "I would never stand within 10' of that either". Any time I take my son to the doctor or dentist I'm made to feel as if I'm an abusive parent for shunning conventional methods and it really gets annoying. Unfortunatley there are no holistic practitioners in my area so we continue to get checkups at the conventional ones. At least the receptionist wrote "DO NOT X-RAY WITHOUT NOTIFYING PARENT FIRST" in big red letters on his chart.
I'm with you in the understanding that flouride and radiation are unavoidable, but the indiscriminate use by "physicians" is, in my opinion, irresponsible, considering the many negative credible reports.
Sorry for the vent, but it gets me worked up when people treat me like a complete whacko when I tell them things like "we got rid of all synthetic cleaners, carpet, etc." But in my mind an asthma-free kid is worth ever snide, uneducated comment.
You probably already know this, but Tom's of Maine has flouride-free toothpaste.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

If you don't want to use fluoride, don't use fluoride. It's fine with me. The only people your decision affects are you and your child.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Mud,
As far as X-Rays go theyre sort of a necessary evil. To say that X-Rays are not harmful is just stupid. The question is, does the benefit they provide outweigh the potential side effects? I would say for most people, like myself, who only have X-Rays every few years the answer is yes. No one should be made to feel stupid for being cautious.
Now to Alfie I say this.
The use or non-use of Fluoride does affect you. If incidence of hip factures rises by 600%, thyroid disease, cancer, bone defects are all elevated (read the links). The people that are most prone to these problems are the uneducated and the poor. Where does the money come to pay for them? Taxes? What about the person that needs to be treated for a broken hip that has no insurance and cant afford to pay for themselves? In one-way or another it affects us all. Its things like that that drive up health costs. Its virtually impossible to avoid fluoride totally until the prevailing attitude changes.
Is there any other single substance in the average persons home that is as deadly as fluoride toothpaste that is so readily available? Most people keep it on the sink. Yet half a tube of sweet tasting toothpaste will kill a child (that is a fact, btw).


 o
edit

Correction...In my last post I said: 600% increase in hip factures, I meant 600% increse in bone cancer. Hip factures rise by 41%.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Komputernut, if your studies are correct (and the studies I find on MedLine suggest otherwise, but I don't argue about fluoride on principle), society's use of fluoride does affect me. But your personal non-use of fluoride does not affect me.

Now, if you decided also not to vaccinate your child, that would affect me, or rather my child. But I don't argue about vaccination on principle either.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

"Yet half a tube of sweet tasting toothpaste will kill a child (that is a fact, btw)."

Proof, please.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

" society's use of fluoride does affect me. But your personal non-use of fluoride does not affect me."

Thats a contridictory statement isen't it? After all I am a member of your society, am I not. Granted my cunsumption of fluoride will not directly affect you, it can indirectly (assuming you believe it has adverse effects to your health).

Please post any positive evidence you have regarding fluoride. Im not asking you to argue the virtues of fluoride, I ask simply for my own info.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

A few weeks ago, Christopher Bryson, author of a new book entitled "The Flouride Deception" was interviewed on Democracy Now!. Sounds like a good book for anyone interested in the subject.

Here is a link that might be useful: Democracy Now!


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I've been visiting DN for over a year now, and have found it to be the most biased, inaccurate source of information there is; on par with FOXNEWS for sensationalism. I'd hardly expect any interview there to be worth much.

Positive evidence? What kind do you want...anecdotal (e.g., teeth falling out saved by flouride), or scientific (e.g., summary of tooth problems by population before and after flouridation of water)?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I have only some family history to report on this subject. My father was born in 1899 on a small farm in Arkansas where very high concentrations of fluoride are found in well water. He had one brother and five sisters. All these children were exposed to levels of fluoride way beyond anything found in today's drinking water. My father often said he did not know what a toothbrush was until he was 20 years old and did not see a dentist before he turned thirty. Still he died at the age of 74 with all his teeth except some wisdom teeth that were pulled for lack of room. At his death all his teeth were in perfect shape with not one cavity. Though I'm not as sure of his brother's and sister's teeth, they all lived into their late eighties and nineties. All died from heart problems, none with cancer.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

My father was born in 1899 on a small farm in Arkansas where very high concentrations of fluoride are found in well water....."
pls8xx

Naturaling aoccuring Fluoride is found in wels like your fathers, is called calcium fluoride, the fluoride I'm speaking of is a by product of heavy industry and is known as sodium fluoride (what you find in toothpaste), flurocidic acid (what most comunities add to your drinking water, and there is one other that slips my mind at the moment.
In India and Alaska where fluoride levels are known to be vry high, residents are known to suffer serious side effects from fluoride....Your father is very lucky imho.

----
"Positive evidence? What kind do you want...anecdotal (e.g., teeth falling out saved by flouride), or scientific...

Jason_MI
----

Though I use statisics to boost my argument I know that statisics should not be the conerstone of any argument. So scientific is always best and it should be fairly easy in todays world to chemicaly document exactly how fluoride bonds to teeth thus making them stronger (this is the argument I have read). The same argument, writen by the ADA, goes on to say that this bonding only occurs in teeth and not in other bones (where the ADA admits that it could be harmful). A fact I find very, very hard to swallow, after all why would fluoride act differently in the mouth. The artcle I read did not explain that.
------------

"Yet half a tube of sweet tasting toothpaste will kill a child (that is a fact, btw)."
Proof, please.

------------

Each one of the links below backs up what I have said...

http://www.fatfreekitchen.com/teeth/fluoride.html
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/fluoride.htm
http://leatherspinsters.com/hazards_of_fluoride.html

Other interesting links

http://www.nofluoride.com/second_thoughts.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/24/fluoride_kills_cells.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/3/fluoride_forbes.htm
http://www.ummah.net.pk/dajjal/fluor1.html

After doing a TON of reading it seems the anti-fluoride and pro fluoride groups are making opposite claims. One group points to a study showing incidence of cavities is lower with the use of fluoride, the other says it makes little to know difference.
Lets assume that fluoride does help prvent tooth decay if used in the ammounts recomended by te ADA, who, incedently, recognizes that too much fluoride can cause problems.
My question is this, after I brush, drink water, eat food, I have consumed about 5-8 times the recomended level of fluoride.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Thanks, I'll peruse your links as soon as I can.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

"I've been visiting DN for over a year now ... ."

This type of response is known as shooting the messenger. Really good rant, avoids the subject entirely, pre-existing bias over-rides any pretense of objectivity.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Huh? Shooting the messenger? Please. But I do kind of disagree, DN does try to make a pretense of objectivity, but has none.

Anyhow, I visited those linked sites and found that claim (half a tube...), but NO evidence; just the oft-repeated claim and one toxicology report, the same one, repeated over and over. So....that is not a fact.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Komputernut, to state it in the most basic terms I can think of: if you don't want to use fluoride, go right ahead and don't use fluoride. It's a free country. And they're YOUR teeth, not mine.

As for studies, go to PubMed and type fluoride and (whatever you want -- hip fracture, osteosarcoma, whatever) into the search box.

Here is a link that might be useful: Entrez PubMed


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

DN unbiased?

Bill
who is now checking the sky for pigs


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

There is no unbiased news reporting; editorial decisions alone to determine what is news are inherently biased. DN is refreshingly leftist/progressive and makes no claims to be anything but that. FOX news is equally unfair and unbalanced but in the interests of the Republican and conservative interests and wholely a USA-promoting media conglomerate. I suppose that would be fine for my local TV station but for one purporting to be international in scope, FOX is nothing more than a propaganda venue in the same way DN is except its contents are mostly vacuous and venal!


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

yup.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

"Huh? ... ."
"DN unbiased? ... ."
"There is no unbiased news reporting; ... ."
"yup."

What exactly does the source of an interview have to do with the topic, the subject of the author's book or the credentials of the the author, the person being interviewed? Here is a brief summary (from the link) of Bryson's background.

"Christopher Bryson, has reported science news stories for many media outlets including the BBC, Christian Science Monitor and the Discovery Channel. He was part of an investigative team at Public Television that won a George Polk Award for "The Kwitny Report.""


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

The source of the interview is very important; it has everything to do with the message being presented. Just like a written article, the author (or in this case, interviewer), directs information, through their questioning, towards a goal; so the goal, intent, and background of the interviewer, or author, or paper, and the group or company that that person works for, is incredibly important; it has everything to do with the message being given out to the audience.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

"The source of the interview is very important; ... ."

What difference does it make if someone doesn't actually read the transcript of the interview or listen to it because of the source?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Suppose an article were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Now suppose exactly the same article were published instead in the National Enquirer. Which article would you find more credible?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Well, Althea, it makes a HUGE differnce. If you got the chance to hear someoone speak, who would you think had a better chance of representing the 'TRUTH', Fox and Rush, or DN and Drudge? People have a tendency, and I think in many cases, rightly so, to believe a news source based on their past histroy, and based on the bias they've displayed in other reporting incidents. If you think Rush (and I'd agree), leads people towards certain conclusions, and interviews someone, most people would suspect it. Why would DN, or any other source be any different.

Seconldy, I ALREADY answered your question once. How many times do I have to do that?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

"Well, Althea, it makes a HUGE differnce."

How could the source posssibly make any difference to someone who chooses not to listen to an interview or read the transcript?

"Seconldy, I ALREADY answered your question once."

In what way did any of your posts address the topic of the thread or a particular book cited in the discussion?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

If they don't listen to the source and don't read the transcript; then they never heard of it, and it never existed, as far as they are concerned. What are you saying????!!!!!???? Your post makes no sense....

My posts addressed the topic very well. Perhaps you should read them, for a change.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

"What are you saying????!!!!!????"

Your posts focused soley on the your personal opinion of Democracy Now!, none addressed the topic of the thread or the particular book/interview cited in the link I posted. Simply shouting "bias" and the foray into discussion of media objectivity isn't a replacement for critical analysis of the on-topic book/interview.

"My posts addressed the topic very well."

Not.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

**I've been visiting DN for over a year now, and have found it to be the most biased, inaccurate source of information there is**

Bias is not a necessarily bad thing ( & obviously a canard here)- but I'd love examples of their inaccuracies, esp. since it's the MOST inaccurate.( & which contradicts recent studies)

RE: flouride - Alfie's response, **if you don't want to use fluoride, go right ahead and don't use fluoride** completely bypasses/ignores the issue of water flouridation.Our area recently voted to flouridate the public water supply over many very well-reasoned & fervent objections by the public & even members of the county board.The best 1 I heard(from a board member) was that we should not be ADDING things to our water, unless they are making it SAFER to drink.When confronted about testing & safety issues for the particular form of flouride to be used, a Dr. who's behind this scheme could not answer any of the (very well-considered) questions as to testing/proof of safety & became angry @ the interviewer & terminated the interview.

& this same guy who's behind the move also stands to benefit financially - go figure.

It never fails to amaze me how, after holding public hearings where an overwhelming am't of negatve public opinion is expressed, gov't officials seem to completely ignore the will of the public they're supposedly serving.

I wholeheartedly agree w/ those who say that flouridation of public water supplies is a giant (dubious) experiment being performed on the public - & children in particular - w/o our permission.Just about everybody uses flouride toothpastes anyway - why should we put it in our water?

Seems to me it should be the other way round - if you want to use flouride, go ahead & buy it for yourself & your loved ones, leave others out of it.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Hmmmm. I saw this thread, said to myself "how timely!", then thought again. Then thought again, and decided to ask an opinion anyway:

My daughter just had her 6 mo. checkup yesterday (healthy and growing like a weed), and we were advised to give her flouride drops (because we have well water).

My own toothpaste contains no flouride (contains neem oil instead).

Oddly enough, she currently has no teeth.

Any opinions?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Carolb, if you don't want fluoridated drinking water, you can use bottled water. Yes, it's an additional burden, but it can't be that much of one, since everybody already seems to anyway (although I doubt it's on account of the fluoride).

Johnny, we have well water, and we chose to give our daughter fluoride drops, starting when she was six months old. It's her only source of fluoride. The idea is for the fluoride to be incorporated into the developing teeth, so it has to be systemic. She does not have fluorosis. We figure that we are already going to have to spend a giant bundle on orthodontia and would rather not spend an additional giant bundle on regular dentistry.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Gosh...off the top of my head, I'm thinking of their inaccurate representation of the "kidnapping" of Haiti's preseident, the "killing" of a motorist in Benton Harbor, and their continuing inaccuracies in describing "tortures" at all sorts of locations. We can go into micro-specifics if you'd like to on each of these cases. I'm also amused by the sensationalism they display; it rivals the weeklies you find at the grocery store checkout lanes.

However, you did say something rational; bias is not neccesarily a bad thing. Why is that?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Carolb, if you don't want fluoridated drinking water, you can use bottled water. Yes, it's an additional burden, but it can't be that much of one, since everybody already seems to anyway (although I doubt it's on account of the fluoride).
----

Carolb, if you don't want fluoridated drinking water, you can use bottled water. Yes, it's an additional burden, but it can't be that much of one, since everybody already seems to anyway (although I doubt it's on account of the fluoride).
----

That is a ridiculous statement if I have ever heard one. You cant buy bottled water and get around fluoride. First I shouldnt have to by bottled water any more than I should have to wear a gas mask to avoid second hand smoke. Secondly, lets assume that I do buy bottled water; fluoride is in my soda, on my vegetables, in the broth of the soup I get at a local restaurant. The ADA recommends that I get 1mg of fluoride a day, but because fluoride touches almost everything I eat or drink. Some estimates put a persons daily fluoride intake between 4-8mg a day. Thats up to 8x to much of the toxin. I think its ironic that we have all been lied to so long about the truth about fluoride that most of us think of it as "vitamin fluoride".


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Komputernut, there are lots of things you shouldn't have to do that you nonetheless have to do. That is life in an imperfect world. And furthermore, in my own, personal opinion, even if I were worried about fluoridation, which I'm not, I would believe that there are far greater imperfections in the world than some unavoidable exposure to fluoridation.

Nonetheless, everybody is entitled to their own hierarchy of worries. If you are so worried about avoiding further fluoride exposure, there are lots of things you can do, which will furthermore save money, improve your health, and help out the environment. For example, don't buy or drink pop, wash the vegetables you buy from the store, grow your own vegetables, and pack your own lunch with homemade soup.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Thanks Alfie. I was wondering why we would give it to her before the teeth came in (had to miss the appointment because of the woody plants conference).


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Alfie,

Lets use a little logic.

First proposition
The government actively pursues the addition of fluoride to the nations water supply

Second proposition
Fluoride has not been proven to be safe.

Therefore (conclusion)
Its ok for the government to add substances to our diets that are not safe

Now a few comments;
Proposition 1
Right now fluoridation nationwide is in the mid 60s percent with a goal of 75% in a few more years.

Proposition 2
What constitutes "safe". Should it be pretty safe (say 51% sure, or should it be overwhelmingly safe, say 95%). Even if youre not concerned about fluoride per say, I hope that you can concede that there is a good deal of evidence saying that fluoride is not safe. The bigger picture is about the government adding substances to your diet of questionable bennifit. Maybe youre not concerned about fluoride in your diet, but you should be concerned that the government has sanctioned the use of a substance of questionable benefit and potential harm.

Conclusion
I know that there are a lot of things in my diet that are potentially harmful, but that does not change the validly of my argument.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Yes, let's use logic.

Proposition 1: Who, in this case, is "the government"? Your local water authority? The state? The federal government? And who is in charge of the government? We, the people, that's who.

Proposition 2: It is impossible to prove that something is safe. There is no such thing as "safe," only more risky and less risky. Staying in bed is not safe. Neither is getting out of bed.

Therefore (conclusion), it is ok for our democratically-elected government to add a substance generally recognized as providing benefits that outweigh the risks to the public water supply.

Now, assessments of benefits vs. risk are inherently subjective, not objective. Even if 99,999 out of 10,000 people think the benefits outweigh the risks, that doesn't invalidate your personal assessment that the risks outweigh the benefits.

In that case, you are free to try to influence whatever governmental agency that fluoridates the water supply to stop fluoridating, by lobbying the agency directly, lobbying the elected officials who control the agency, and persuading enough other members of the electorate to do the same. If your efforts are unsuccessful, well, that's democracy in action. Accept that fluoridation of the water supply is the will of the majority. Furthermore, though "majority rules" is unjust when the rule of the majority in some way oppresses or takes away rights from the minority, that is not the case with this issue, because, as I have said, there are lots of things you can do to avoid fluoride exposure despite fluoridation of the public water supply.

And finally, if you disagree with my Proposition 1 and instead believe that corporations, the World Trade Organization, black helicopters, the Trilateral Commission, the Council of the Elders of Zion, the Martians, or anybody else except us, the people, are in charge of the government, and therefore there is nothing you can do except complain -- well, feel free to complain. Meanwhile, I will feel free not to click on this thread anymore.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Whew Alfie! Let 'em eat cake???

Are you assuming everyone has, equally, the wherewithal to purchase bottled water for their family?Yes we buy bottled(purified, not 'spring') water, but lowest price around here (@ 1 store - not all stores even carry it) is .99/gal. & we go through approx 1-2 gallons/day in a household of 3.Should poor people simply shut up & be grateful for what they get?

Please refer to my comments above for the so-called 'democratic' process that has become, unfortunately, all too common in many areas.Lobby the officials?With what?The only speech they seem to hear is $$$.Petition them?Our state gov't has been trying to pass a bill that would limit citizens' rights to adress the gov't even more - groups would have to exist for a year before they & their petitions would be acknowledged or accepted & the amount of signatures required would be raised even more.

& unfortunately, our county commission - which is the body responsible for approving this measure, allows you 3 minutes of time to speak @ their rare & inconvenient public hearings - & you have to sign up ahead of time - if you can get off from work.That's why the majority of the few folks appearing @ these poorly publicized meetings are retirees.This is not a unique situation.

P.S. Those flouride drops, etc. are not the same kind of flouride & the dosage is MEASURED, STANDARDIZED & REGULATED.

P.P.S.IMPE, debates of this sort always seem to center on the degree & type of information individual citizens have &/or have access to.

P.P.P.S. Has anyone else stopped to consider that the idea that ALL people opposed to to flouridation are some sort of nuts is a manufactured meme that serves a purpose?


 o
In defense of Alfie

We had to go to a doctor to get the prescription, dose, instructions, etc. for the flouride drops. Much as folks can't afford bottled water, many folks also can't afford doctors and flouride drops.

A few miles downstream from us (thank god not upstream...but we wouldn't have moved down there), EVERYONE has to buy bottled water because the wells and municipal water are contaminated. Just a living expense down there (but relatively cheap...$0.15 to refill your container). I bet it wouldn't cost too much to buy by the 5 gal bottle if you looked around.

I've been on these forums a long time, and can vouch for Alfie's genuine character, and that she really does care about other fora members and the welfare of their families.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Hi O'johnny - I'm also familiar with (& to) Alfie here on the G'web - that's why I feel comfortable challenging her above statements, which struck me as a bit out-of-character for her.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Carolb: I'd vouch for you too...

Was a posting removed? I'm pretty sure there was some nasty post above yours.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I must agree with Carol for a change; if the locality doesn't want Flouride, or something of that nature, then they shouldn't have it. That is not democracy in action.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Where's the cake, Carolb? I think that, if you can afford pop and eating out, you can afford to buy bottled water, if only by spending the money you would have spent on pop and eating out on bottled water instead. Furthermore, given that bottled water really doesn't cost all that much, if you can't afford to buy bottled water, then

1. You are a member of the socioeconomic group (namely, the poor) most likely to suffer from dental problems and thus, if fluoride has beneficial effects on dental health, to benefit from fluoride, and

2. If it were me, and I were very upset about my lack of access to non-fluoridated water, my priorities would be misplaced, because the lacks of access I really ought to be worrying about first would be access to medical care, dental care, good schools, and safe, clean places to live. As I know you know, in the completely ridiculous health care so-called system in the U.S., the poorer you are, all things being equal, the less care and the worse care you get, and that goes double for dental care.

Also, where did I say that anybody who worries about fluoride is a nut? I don't worry about fluoride, and I think the evidence supports my position, but that goes for a surprising lot of things that a lot of people [sadly misguided people, all of them, of course :-)] disagree with me about.

And yes, if the majority of people (or voters) in the locality doesn't want fluoridated water, then they shouldn't get fluoridated water. I don't know of any federal laws or regulations overriding localities' jurisdiction on the question of adding fluoride or not, but I'm not an expert at all. Are there any?

Alfie,
who suspects that what "flouride" is, is the main ingredient the pre-sliced squishy white stuff labelled as bread she's been rescuing from the dumpster and composting, because that stuff is not natural in any way she defines the term


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Yes, let's use logic.
Proposition 1: Who, in this case, is "the government"? Your local water authority? The state? The federal government? And who is in charge of the government? We, the people, that's who.

Proposition 2: It is impossible to prove that something is safe. There is no such thing as "safe," only more risky and less risky. Staying in bed is not safe. Neither is getting out of bed.

Therefore (conclusion), it is ok for our democratically-elected government to add a substance generally recognized as providing benefits that outweigh the risks to the public water supply.

----------------------

Alfie,
I can't write any clearer yet you still managed to miss the point entirely. But because I'm a patient person I will answer your questions,

1 Goverment means Feds, state and local

2 Agreed, but its not impossible to deem somthing worthy of the risk associated with it. I asked you a question that you convienently ignored. What is your definition of safe?

3. Who decided that flouoride was worth the risk?...I dont remember ever being asked to vote on the issue. Carol points out that the local goverments cleverly plan meetings that are not publicised and are during work hours so no one has the chance to debate the issue.

Lastly, we have all been lied to for so long that we as a populace don't even question fluoride safety. I call it the monkey syndrome, see below;

--------------------------------

"It all started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, a banana was hung on a string and a set of stairs was placed under it. Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys were sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, anytime another monkey tried to climb the stairs, the other monkeys tried to prevent it.

After a couple of days, the cold water was removed. One monkey was removed from the cage and replaced with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and wanted to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he knew that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted.

Next, another of the original five monkeys was removed and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, a third original monkey was replaced with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey took to the stairs, he was attacked. Most of the monkeys that were beating him had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana.
Why not?

Because as far as they know, that's the way it's always been done around here.
And that, is how most of our rituals and customs began.

-------------------------------

So you see my belife as that most people hype fluoride and have no idea why. Its just the way its always been done. You care to show me where you information comes from?

Can you show that fluoride does what it claims? Tooth paste makers were asked to prove it or remove statements claiming that flouride prevents cavities. Statements were removed as non even tried to prove it.

Can you debunk all of the studies that have been done showing the potential harm that fluoride can have? Specificly how fluoride inhibits the absorption of iodine, a very essential mineral?

My issue is that I don't trust money. There are big dollars at stake for industry on the issue of fluoride. Its not just the money lost selling the stuff should we all decide not to use it, but the money that would be spend having to despose of what is at toxic waste product.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Komputernut, we are talking past each other. Obviously, I consider fluoride as generally safe at recommended levels. Equally obviously, you don't. One of the most important things I learned while turning from an adolescent to a grown-up is that two people of good will and equal intelligence and sense can look at exactly the same reasonable evidence and come to completely opposite conclusions. Let's leave it at that, yes?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Amen, sister


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Alfie,

Well that last post is a pretty clever way to keep from answering my questions directed at you. So If I continue to press you for answers I must not be grown up.....

Have it your way, and sure I'll agree to disagree with you.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Well, just to piss you off, I'll answer a couple of your questions, but I have a tendency to agree with Alfie, in that in neither case, will either of you convince the other; so what's the point? But anyhow, you are correct, you didn't get to vote on this issue; you also prolly don't get to vote on a lot of the tax issues that you face, a lot of how tax money is spent, a lot of very important things. Heck, some people even think that they didn't get to vote for the last president. Even in you links (yes, I read some of them), I didn't anything so bad as to plant my battle flag. But if you do, fine.

You also ask Alfie is she can debunk all the studies; personally, I only saw one, oft repeated but never improved upon...but that doesn't matter. Can you debunk all the pro-flouride studies? Would you want to?

Let's face it, you, and others, are not going to agree with others on this subject, ever. You say that everyone has been lied to for so long, that it's big money that you don't trust...you have formed an opinion...bordering on crusade. There is no point disucssing it further; you mind is made up, set in stone. It is now mantra.

Why would any of us want to chip away at that concrete? You win, dude.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I just feel bad for the poor monkeys.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Jason,

Don't fool yourself there bro...It's gonna take a bit more than that to piss me off. Just more vagueness and some comments about taxes and the presedency, like those things have anything whatsoever to do with the topic.

There is a number of studies and artcles that show the danges of fluoride, perhaps I wasent careful when I posted the links, as you are correct many of them refer to a similar study. I would, and still will, post more links, if your really interested, but I doubt you are. I have yet to see anyone post anything yet besides a link to a med site.
As far as the pro-fluoride stuff...Hello, what the heck do you think this thread is all about?

Goodnight Jason...


 o
pissed off?

PS, though it was never my intention, it sounds like I'm the only one pissing anyone off....


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

  • Posted by Vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Jul 20, 04 at 23:34

Aside from the flouride issue, I've yet to find the answer to my question of why mercury is used in fillings? Have read a bunch of pro and con amalg filling sites but no info as to why it's used. Have to suppose it has something to do with the chemistry of hardening fast, strength, and durability? According to the various sites these fillings are ~50% mercury, with various amounts of silver, tin, etc.
At any rate, assuming that flouride does help prevent cavities, I suppose one advantage is that we have less mercury leaching fillings in our heads. vgkg (who wishes to be an enlightened monkey)


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Vgkg,

HEY!...start your own contrversy thread this one is full.

LOL...Just kidding, incendently good question.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

  • Posted by Vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Wed, Jul 21, 04 at 9:38

After stumbling over into the Soil conversations forum I realized that my original mercury in fillings question was posted over there in a similar thread. My readings of this issue show that mercury has been used in these fillings since the 1800s. Folks life spans back then avg ~40 or so years so maybe they weren't too worried about long term effects? or people would accept any treatment to relieve tooth aches and save their teeth? But with life spans now >70 years perhaps leaching mercury may be a factor in nervous system problems for the elderly? But I digress, on with the flouride debate. Both issues are surely a mouth full! vgkg


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I'm just curious...do you guys go to local government meetings? Ranting on a web forum is one thing...

-Johnny, who will have to miss precious evening hours in the garden to go to one of those meetings next week.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Johnny,

I absoulutly would if I knew there was going to be one in my community.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

One last attempt to bring more credibility to my side of the debate....here are some quotes from people that are generaly acepted as experts on the subgect....

How do you argue with this??

The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association. [actual letter]

"Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age" -Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist.

"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems." Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943

Segments of the population are unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. They include "postmenopausal women and elderly men, pregnant woman and their fetuses, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems." United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, pg. 112, Sec.2.7, April 1993)

"fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain." Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 2000

"It is now clear that fluoride is a potentially harmful substance when present in the drinking water in any amount." Dr. Simon Beisler, Chief of Urlogy, Roosevelt Hospital and Past President of the American Urological Association.

"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is 'safe.'" Dr. Ludgwig Grosse, Chief of Cancer Research, U.S. Veterans Administration.

In Harlem, NY, which has been fluoridated for 32 years, "There's more dental decay among these kids; we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths." American Dental Association, May 2000

"The CDA emphasizes that the need for fluoride depends on overall exposure, including place of residence, diet and oral health habits. and "The CDA recognizes the need to continue to monitor studies on fluoride and general health." Canadian Dental Association, May, 2000

"Fluoride has been shown to adversely effect the central nervous system, causing behavioral changes, increased hip fractures and reproduction problems." Natick Report Research Team
[Research Microbiologist, U.S. Army, Dr. B. J. Gallo, Environmental Chemist, J. Kupperschmidt Apollo Program Project Scientist, Dr. N.R. Mancuso, U.S. Army Natick Research Labs, A. Murray, Molecular Biologist, Dr. Strauss]

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

"fluoridation ... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has." - Dr. Professor Albert Schatz, (Microbiology), co-discoverer of Streptomycin, the cure for tuberculosis and numerous other bacterial infections.

Fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and overall health.. it doesn't need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so. - Dr. Hardy Limeback, a leading Canadian fluoride authority, former fluoride advocate and long-standing consultant to Canadian Dental Association. (read his rationale)

"The evidence against the safety of this public health policy keeps mounting; it is too compelling to ignore." - Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, Children's Hospital, Boston

"By 1983 I was thoroughly convinced that fluoridation caused more harm than good. I expressed the opinion that some of these children with dental fluorosis could, just possibly, have also suffered harm to their bones" - Dr. Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland New Zealand. (read his rationale)

".. the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body". - Chief Justice John Flaherty, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (presided over litigation involving fluoridation)

"This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health." - Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann (presided over litigation involving fluoridation)

"the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by (Houston) City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Texas Judge Anthony Farris (presided over litigation involving fluoridation)

"E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.

In 1996, there were approximately 340,000 hospital admissions for hip fractures in the United States. Women sustain 75 percent-80 percent of all hip fractures. Medicare costs for hip fractures were estimated at $2.9 billion in 1991. Centers for Disease Control

"About one-half of the people with hip fractures end up in nursing homes, and in the year following the fracture, 20 per cent of them die." Harold Slavkin, Director of National Institute of Dental Research (JADA 1999)

"..fluoride damages bone even at levels added to public drinking water" American Journal of Epidemiology, October 1999

"Since 1990, five major epidemiological studies from three countries-the United States, United Kingdom and France-- showing a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions.." Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1997 vol. 21 no. 24

"..significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm." Journal of the American Medical Association, August 1992

"..the recommended "optimal" intake (a level that has yet to be determined scientifically)." Journal of the American Dental Association, Dec. 1995

"Water contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them" stated Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors.

Hundreds of millions of dollars may be wasted annually on children's fluoride treatments by dentists. Typically given once or twice a year at routine checkups, the treatments do nothing to reduce cavities in kids, says a study of insurance records. Journal of Public Health Dentistry

In June of 1999, the Majority Chairman of the Environmental Resources Committee, Pennsylvania House of Representatives stated ".. there is no solid scientific or medical evidence to show that fluoridation is of any beneficial help to public health, safety or welfare."

The former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association said he often received telephone calls from irate AMA members and letters from state medical societies and AMA officers "threatening political action against the editor and the Journal for publishing what offended them ideologically, or more likely imposed on (physicians') ability to earn money." (article) - Mr. Lundberg, editor of JAMA for 17 years

"That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Farris, presiding judge in a case involving the fluoridation of Houston's water.

The Washington Bureau editor of AD Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry, wrote last year that supporters of fluoridation have had an "unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry has lost "its objectivity - the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion."

"All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree that dental fluorosis, which is the first visible sign of systemic poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels." Dr. Kennedy, Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and a practicing Dentist for 20 years.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Hey Johnny - as I said above, the meetings (that I get advance notice about) are held during most folks working hours - mine included = (

I hafta resort to writing, making phone calls, etc.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

My problem's more the opposite...a lot of them are at 7 PM, when I'm getting ready for bed!

Writing and phone calls works too, of course...just depends on the stakes. The meetings I'm interested in are primarily zoning, as I'm concerned about too much building further up the creek. My veggie patch was flooded twice this summer during extremely unusual weather, but I'm worried this will become the norm if there aren't proper runoff ponds. 900 units are going in already.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I can only speak from my own experience as a dental assistant for about 5 differet doctors in the Midwestern States (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado).
In Texas, I worked for a dentist who was an upstanding member of his community, did lots of donated time to the poor migrant workers of the area, and was very active in his church. I thought very highly and respected his conservative practises.
He used a method where as I was to "squeeze" excess mercury from a white cloth after the amalgam was mixed. If, I didnt squeeze out the excess mercury it was too soft to work with (the mercury went throught the cloth and onto my bare hands (1978-1979) and onto a tray where the mercry was recycled. The son of the dentist shared office space and had newly graduated from dental school and was practising in partnership with his older father. The young dentist had a "new" machine which mixed the exact porportion which we had to dispense as the amalgam which was to be used in the fillings- there was no squeezing.

As an artist I enjoyed carving the fillings to work with the occlussions, so the bite would not be interfered nor the filling to have stress on it. A large filling would be insulated from the pulp area with a medicated layer between the amalgam and the pulp of the tooth (the center soft part which housed the nerves).
Usually when filling and carving there is alot of waste which is to be taken out BEFORE the patient swallows. hopefully gotten before it goes down!

As far as flouride, I was told by my doctor, not my dentist, to give my child flouride drops in his drink. As a dental assistant I was applaud that a family doctor was prescribing flouride drops for my sons teeth. Big Secret..
my son is now 24 years old...he does not have any fillings in his head! And I only gave him the drops one time and my intuition said to throw it away! That was 23 years ago, and like I said his teeth are georgeous! Buthe also has a good diet with little to no sweets and sodas.

As a dental assistant, it was my job to adminster the flouride treaments to a lot of children and adults. A timer was set and the big glob of bubblegum flavored flouride was put into trays which were like spongy tooth guards. When the timer went off it was imperative not to swallow the toxin and to spit spit spit but not drink any water for a few hours so as the flouride could better soak into the teeth.

When I was given the flouride treatment to take for myself, I cant say my teeth felt stronger, instead I always felt like my teeth were acting like and feeling more chalk like.
However, as my job, I continued giving treatments...but not to myself or my choldren. I never told the dentist otherwise and after many years the dentist would say how well the flouride was working for me and my children (who I never treated with it).

Today, I just try to care for my teeth and eat right.

Soda is probably the worse thing for our teeth, so I minimize soda if any in my diet. There is alot of sentimental phycological reasons for wanting to drink soda...those smmer memories as a kid and sharing with endearing friends makes this type of drink a brainwashed favorite.

As a dental assistant I saw people who drank soda as the only liquid intake. TheIR teeth looked like porus holes (sponge-like) where the enamel/dentin was eaten up. It was what scared me into reserving my intake of soda.

Flouride can not replace the dentin nor in my opinion can it make the teeth stronger. That just my opinion and my experience and I know many people have gotten outraged with my thinking...and friends have rolled their eyes and trust doctors as if they were gods. While I do believe a doctor can help facilitate ones healing, I will leave the medical and dental paradigm debate for another day, or better yet avoid! I would only avoid becasue I am insecure with any one mandating over me how to treat myself or my family with out me better understanding and believing in the the doctors diganosis.

But back to the flouride...I dont use it in our toothpaste and we have private wells to drink from.

I dont condemn anyone from using flouride, but it does concern me. I take mental notes and over time out of interest compare notes.

I heard that calcium is also very controversal as far a suppliment like flouride. Perhaps someone else could enlighten me more about that, otherwise I'll do some searching on my own sometime.

I love the computer....all its resources at your very finger tips...billions of opinions to sift through and try to figure out.

"Truths" like it was said above in earlier postings of this thread...it is subjective! "Objective" is only a concept and not possible- it is impossible to remove oneself fromones thoughts. "truth" to me is a bunch of principals which support a subjective construct.

I think it will be many more years till flouride and its effects will be known and how can they separate one single suspected culprit from other influences?

So, for now, there much flouride being used and prescribed and taken with much trust, but no long term understanding of possible effects and risks.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Nice post gggg = )

I have a mouthful of fillings - even tho I suffered through those nasty flouride treatments when I was a child & we brushed w/ flouride toothpaste & tho I cannot be certain, I'm guessing we had supplements as well, since we took 'prescription' liuquid vitamins from the Dr.

I think you're onto something w/ that soda/candy thing - altho we did not drink only soda as kids, we drank it often & I was seriously addicted to Sweettarts (a special treat were the giant 1s that's gave you sores on your tongue).All that acid may well be the culprit responsible for my seemingly soft teeth, when I was a youngster.Funny how I stopped having cavities when I grew up & stopped ingesting sugar & soda.

OTOH, I strictly limited my son's intake of candy & soda until he was in Middle School(we NEVER have had it in the house - except for holidays) & he's never had a cavity(he's 22 now).He did have vitamins w/ flouride when he was a baby, but he also went through a long phase - when he was in elementary & middle school - where he would only brush his teeth if I caught him out & threatened to do it myself >= J


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Interesting thread. My father was a dentist starting in the 1930s. He was strongly pro-fluoride and felt it radically improved the dental health of those with little access to regular dental care. In those early days many people had damaged and not-so-damaged teeth pulled as common practice.

In general I'd agree that hours spent sucking on sugary sodas and hard candies are the worst thig for teeth.

Fluoride doesn't bother me. Years at my father's knee have me convinced it is generally helpful. If it truly bothers and concerns you, why not contact your local elected officials or DEP? With all this talk of "the Government" adding things to the drinking water, there hasn't been enough talk of how we can change practices we disagree with. Get involved locally, and open a dialogue with your community and your government.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

This rather reminds me of the Roundup arguments on the "other side" of this forum.

Personally, I don't brush my teeth with diluted rat poison, and I filter it out of the family drinking water (reverse osmosis).

However, sometimes one has to realize when it is time to stop beating a dead horse.

Peace,

- Sequoia


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

...and never, ever, look a dead horse in the mouth.

(Sorry, in an odd mood today :).


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I thought that it was: Don't look a gift horse in the mouth? You people are lucky to have worked over the flouride issue early and often. I grew up drinking arsenic water and breathing radon gas.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Actually, none of the following four statements is logically valid:

1. I had fluoride and I have cavities; therefore the fluoride didn't prevent the cavities.
2. I didn't have fluoride and I have cavities; if I had had fluoride, I wouldn't have cavities.
3. I didn't have fluoride and I don't have cavities; therefore fluoride has no effect on cavities.
4. I had fluoride and I don't have cavities; therefore the fluoride prevents cavities.

They're not valid because there's no telling what might have been if the opposite condition had been true (i.e., fluoride for people without fluoride, or no fluoride for people with fluoride), plus you can't generalize for the whole population based on your own individual experience (e.g., you might be genetically predisposed to really great or really bad teeth, or you might drink lots of pop, or never touch the stuff, or...)


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

And of course we all know that the whole radon gas thing is overblown......


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

alfie: if you added as a premise "flouride prevents cavities", 1 would be false, 2 true, 3 a contradiction, 4 a tautology.

-johnny the former logic teacher.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I cant make up my mind on this article....it sounds not great and yet great for toothpaste.

I do understand how chemistry can change from a toxic reaction to a non toxic situation depending on the molecular exchange when other chemicals are added.

Perhaps a chemical engineers can shed some light on this for me.

Here is a link that might be useful: HALOGEN GROUPS


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Wow I didn't know this thread was still alive!!

I want to say a few things...

First it dosent matter if fluoride does prevent cavities if the side effects are greater than the problem that its intended to prevent.

Secondly, I don't care how you feel about flouride, everyone should have a problem with the way that the goverment (local, state and federal) has gone about adding it to our water without studying potential side effects, then giving the companies that make it imunity from litigation in the event that its proven to be harmful.

Lastly, my sister-in-law is in dental school and has been advised not to give children flouride treatment. I havent had much time to talk to her about this so I will get back when I know more.....

To the thread that wont die....


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

wow - may i continue to beat a dead horse.

the federal government sets a maximum contaminent level (MCL)for flouride in community water systems at 4 ppm... so if a water system has more than 4ppm it has to remove it. that is a recognition of the health risks associated with relatively high chronic dose of fluoride.
the states set a minimum fluoride concentration for dental health. some states its a recommended level. in others like where i live, its mandatory. in illinois the target range for fluoride is 0.9 - 1.2 mg/l. so if the water system has less Fl, they must add to get to the target, usually in the form of hydrofluorosilic acid. these concentrations are based on studies and are not arbitrary.

the original post compares fluoride to lead. Lead has a federal MCL of 15 ppb (note the "b") for public water supplies as compared to the 4 ppm (note the "m") for Flouride. that is a good indicator of how dangerous lead is compared to fluoride .

if you have well water - contact your local state water survey or health department to find out if fluoride occurs naturally in the wells in your area before you add flouride to the diet.

and if you dont want flouride in your water then you probably dont want chlorine, phosphates, nitrates, ammonia and lots of other goodies either - if that is the case, get an R/O unit - then you can be responsible for what is or is not in your water....

Here is a link that might be useful: public health report on benefits and risk of flouridation


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

After recently finding out that I have hypothyroidism, I began to do a lot of research on the subject and lo and behold flouride came into the equation frequently. Over 5 million people in the US have hypothyroidism. Flouride is used to suppress the thyroid in hypERthyroidism. The FDA has NEVER approved the use of flouride supplementation.
I have personally never believed the government protected anything but their bank accounts, now it's even more apparent.

Here is a link that might be useful: report


 o
still beating the horse; its not only dead its now decomposing

its my understanding that the FDA does not really approve or disapprove of non-prescription dietary supplements - of any kind ... they can ban a substance but generally they only regulate the advertising and or misadvertising of the products... such as vitamins, weight loss pills, shark cartilidge, st johns wort, euchinacea etc etc. FDA regulates whether product claims are valid. flouride has been proven to reduce the incidence of dental caries and thus products are allowed to include such information on their packaging. that is the extent of the FDA's authority.

fluoride has also been found to increase the incidence of certain cancers (particularly in males) under high dosing situations.

its interesting that you seem to think there is a reason that the FDA has not approved of its use; yet you dont believe the government is capable of protecting the public anyway. so even if the FDA did approve it- it really wouldnt make a difference to you; or would it?

i have not seen any studies comparing the incidence of hypothyroidism of flouridated water areas to non-fluoridated water areas.. most of the studies i have seen reflected cancers and bone ailments. what dose of fluoride is needed to suppress hyperthyroid condition compared to the dose that is used in public water supplies? ( i dont really want to know the answer to this question...) if it hasnt already been done, perhaps you could get some grant money to compare data on the thyroid conditions in flouridated areas and non-fluoridated areas.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Until the last few years I was under the assumption that the FDA was responsible for regulating substances that entered our food chain (call me naive). I was completely unaware that companies can either choose to submit petitions for said substances or not and put them on the market anyway. I do know that with the thousands of chemicals that enter the marketplace every year, the FDA lacks the resources to keep up with all of them, or for that matter test all that are submitted.
You're correct in that it wouldn't really make any difference to me if they approved it or not because there are plenty of FDA approved substances that are taken off the market all the time, but it usually has to be forced off by a lawsuit.
The study you propose sounds like a very interesting one to me and I will try to find something out on that. I've been reading so much lately my head hurts, and as we all know, it's difficult to weed through the crap.


 o
RE:dosage

Joe-Here's your unwanted answer.

Here is a link that might be useful: flouride & thyroid activity


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

  • Posted by SoCal23 USDA10/Sunset23 (My Page) on
    Thu, Dec 30, 04 at 14:39

Just something I'm surprised no one has brought up (or perhaps I missed it when things got a little heated earlier).

Unlike other bones, your teeth remain unaltered throughout your life. Once your secondary teeth have come in, flouride is no longer of any benefit anyway. Why not give flouride treatments to children until all of their secondary teeth are present and then discontinue? This would give you all the benefits with considerably less risk.

Ryan


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

What would the industry do with all that toxic flouride waste products if the lost the dental market, so to speak? No need for EPA oversight if the product is added to our drinking water as long as the industry doesn't dump the stuff in lagoons or landfills.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

I'm going to start brushing with garden soil and gargle with urine......


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

LOL! Garden soil might have an abrasive action on the enamel and you might want to floss afterwards to get the bits and pieces out, but regardless of urine's sterility I think I'd have to pass.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

  • Posted by SoCal23 USDA10/Sunset23 (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 14, 05 at 3:40

Oops! My college chemistry instructor is probably rolling in his grave as we speak, I misspelled fluoride three times in my previous post.

Ryan


 o
RE: Trusting FDA

FDA has come under a lot of fire lately for clearly NOT protecting public health - I've always believed, "Truth will out"....


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Truth with out but at the cost of how much health and welfare?

I think the current uproar around the FDA is a means of exposing whistle-blowers and others resisting improved industry oversight and control of the regulatory processes. Call me cynical. If industry is unable or unwilling to comply, we'll just reduce oversight and accelerate the revolving door between regulator and regulatoree.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

Really late comer. I recently found a toothpaste without fluoride - Spry.

In my opinion fluorinating the public drinking water in unconscienceable.

When I mentioned not using fluoride to my dentist, he was dead set against it. Course, he has put mercury in my and hundreds of other mouths plus been in favor of fluoride. So it would be quite a thing for him to change thinking on these things at this time in his career.

Also he didn't know about the positive things for tooth and other health of xylitol. That really makes me wonder.


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

There are many other brands of toothpaste without flouride. Toms of Maine and Weleda are probably the most widely avaialble.

Wayne, what are the benefits of xylitol?


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

xylitol chewing gum is beneficial for reducing cavities in children's teeth!!

Xylitol has a glycemic index of 7 or 8 while white sugar is 68....potatoes 55....beans 30s, and peanuts 14. All this means that xylitol enters the blood stream very slowly. It is just as sweet tasting as sugar and it has one third less calories. For the synthetic sweetner crowd...well those products are not generally healthy!


 o
RE: Brush with Lead, never have another cavity!!

  • Posted by vjcamp Z7 Ft,Worth, TX (My Page) on
    Sat, May 26, 07 at 13:12

As is true with with most anything., too much can be as harmful as not enough, sometimes it is aslo wise to avoid synthesized or artificial produced produced versions. Simply because large amounts of Vitamin A can cause blindness or death doesn't mean that Vitamin A is "BAD".
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.htm
www.aapd.org/publications/brochures/fluorosis.asp


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Organic Gardening Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here