An expert speaking on an Australian TV news show reveals fluoride for what it is.

[Flibb]

I do love the idea that they chuck sodium fluoride in the water because its cheaper than "proper" disposal. That one cracks me up, it costs the water companies to add it. The site I worked at until 6 months ago had several million £££ of chemicals in the warehouse, many would fit your idea of "waste", none were free. One of our most widely used would cost around £2000 for a standard barrel, yet it was basically a by-product

[Ciber]

I do love the idea that they chuck sodium fluoride in the water because its cheaper than "proper" disposal. That one cracks me up, it costs the water companies to add it. The site I worked at until 6 months ago had several million £££ of chemicals in the warehouse, many would fit your idea of "waste", none were free. One of our most widely used would cost around £2000 for a standard barrel, yet it was basically a by-product

Fair enough.

[TheAnimus]

its southpark at its bluntest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery...e_Urinal_Deuce
And when people are telling people bull about their health, quoting questionable outliers as authority figures then quite frankly I don't give a damn.

[chuckskull]

Wait this whole thread is because of the guy who thinks pasteurizing milk is a bad idea?

I remember seeing him on telly and thinking he was a money grabbing idiot, playing on the fears of vulnerable ill people with his alternative medicine spiel. After taking a quick look at his website I'm now ever more confident in that opinion of him.

You know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

[peterb]

We're not talking about natural trace levels of calcium fluoride. We're talking about sodium fluoride additives and pollutants.

Why lump Sodium fluoride nd pollutants together? Somewhat emotive language? A pollutant is something that enters the water supply in an uninteneded and uncontrolled manner. The addition of flurine salts is controlled and accurately dosed.

It's well known that water fluoridation is not safe. As I already pointed out (and recently, directly to you), fluoride ingestion is toxic.

Sweepoing generalisation. Your source is a wikipaeda entry that say that high dose levels of sodium fluride is toxix. Well, there is a surprise. High doeses f most biologically actve substances are toxic - oxygen, for example, at partial pressures of more than 1.6bar is toxic to the central nervous system. Chlorine (as the gas) added to water to disinfect (both for drinking and in swimming baths) it is extremely toxic (and was used as a chemical warfare agent in WW1) but at the doses used is perfectly safe.

And whether it's toxic or totally safe is beside the point. Forced medication is wrong. And the only thing scarier than it going on, is sheep not even thinking about it, and bleating "government knows best!" when anyone opens their mouth about it.

So we should drink untreated water? And return to an era where cholera and typhoid become endemic? Or perhaps milk should not be heat treated to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. Fluridation is a major factor in prevention of dental diseases. Peer reviewed studies (cited by j_j_k_p) demonstrate it.

Well the fluoride used I'm told is an industrial by product or waste that is very poisonous as we all know.

[Citation needed]

Wait this whole thread is because of the guy who thinks pasteurizing milk is a bad idea?

I remember seeing him on telly and thinking he was a money grabbing idiot, playing on the fears of vulnerable ill people with his alternative medicine spiel. After taking a quick look at his website I'm now ever more confident in that opinion of him.

You know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

Indeed!

There are too many self seeking publicists who pray on public ignorance with a scare story, and too many ready to jump on a convenient bandwagon.


[ADMIN MODE]I have deleted two posts that were not in keeping with the HEXUS rules. Name calling (and retaliation in kind) is NOT necessary - and those involved should re-read the rules about language! [/ADMIN MODE]

[finlay666]

You know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

You know the whole argument with homeopathy.... you take a substance and dilute it, then take a small amount of that and dilute it more until nothing of the original item remains, yet the water has a 'memory' of what is in it.... just think of the poop and other nasty fluids that the water will 'remember'

Although I do think there is nothing wrong with natural medicine (by this I mean things that have natural antibacterial properties like tea tree oil) after all it's how we get modern medicine from derivatives of mould and other weird and wonderful things, but that is not 'alternative' as it's proven

[chuckskull]

Yeah if you really had to pin down a definition of 'alternative medicine', it would be "Substances claimed, but not proven to have any medicinal properties" and frankly I'm often astounded how many people are willing to quite literally bet their lives without evidence, evidence that should these treatments truly be effective, would rapidly present itself in even the simplest double blind trial.

The truth is most medicine can trace it's roots back to 'natural medicine', most of the worlds medicine was originally extracted or derived from plants and animals, frankly to a point where anyone who truly tries to convince you of a distinction is probably more interested in your wallet than your health.

Just as examples;

Penicillin;


Morphine;


I'm sure almost everyone on here knows this, but it's nice to remind people, because what people like this shill spewing his nonsense on TV rely upon as a business model; is that somehow most medicine is 'unnatural' horrible stuff. When in fact the opposite couldn't be more true. Nature is a truly amazing thing, I love it so much I insist on having 3-4 plates full of it a day but some people proselytizing it's miraculous virtues are just plain old conmen.

[aidanjt]

Why lump Sodium fluoride nd pollutants together? Somewhat emotive language? A pollutant is something that enters the water supply in an uninteneded and uncontrolled manner. The addition of flurine salts is controlled and accurately dosed.

Sodium fluoride is a pollutant.

Sweeping generalisation. Your source is a wikipaeda entry that say that high dose levels of sodium fluride is toxix. Well, there is a surprise. High doeses f most biologically actve substances are toxic - oxygen, for example, at partial pressures of more than 1.6bar is toxic to the central nervous system. Chlorine (as the gas) added to water to disinfect (both for drinking and in swimming baths) it is extremely toxic (and was used as a chemical warfare agent in WW1) but at the doses used is perfectly safe.

Actually, UV treatment of drinking water is preferred. And swimming pool water rarely sits right with a persons stomach. And I've already tackled this argument.

So we should drink untreated water? And return to an era where cholera and typhoid become endemic? Or perhaps milk should not be heat treated to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.

Blatant red herring. Water treated with UV kills any pathogen without adding anything to the water (besides a bit of energy). And pasteurisation doesn't add any toxins to the milk. Processing in and off itself isn't bad, it's the process employed which can be dangerous. There's also the point of intent. Even chemical treatment of water isn't an attempt at medical administration of chemicals, the purpose of the chemicals is to kill pathogens, and not adversely effect the population.

Fluridation is a major factor in prevention of dental diseases.

No, fluoride is a major factor in prevention of dental disease. The claims for water fluoridation is far from certain.

Peer reviewed studies (cited by j_j_k_p) demonstrate it.

In 1986 fluoridation opponent Mark Diesendorf pointed out the substantial declines in tooth decay in nonfluoridated European countries.[37] Although fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure among the poor and disadvantaged, it may be unnecessary for preventing tooth decay, particularly in industrialized countries where tooth decay is rare.

He was citing an EU study, BTW. As I said, far from certain. So if the 'benefit' is questionable. What other justification is left? Other than the obvious, government power expands whenever the political opportunity presents itself. Especially when they're shoving fat envelops down their pocket.

[peterb]

Sodium fluoride is a pollutant.


Actually, UV treatment of drinking water is preferred. And swimming pool water rarely sits right with a persons stomach. And I've already tackled this argument.

Actually no. For drinking water (unless treatment is at the point of delivery) chlorination is preferred because it is persistant.

http://www.eurochlor.org/index.asp?page=679

Blatant red herring. Water treated with UV kills any pathogen without adding anything to the water (besides a bit of energy).

As above, chemical treatmet of waer for mass distribution is referred.

And pasteurisation doesn't add any toxins to the milk. Processing in and off itself isn't bad, it's the process employed which can be dangerous. There's also the point of intent.

The intent is to improcve public health.

Even chemical treatment of water isn't an attempt at medical administration of chemicals, the purpose of the chemicals is to kill pathogens, and not adversely effect the population.

You could argue that about administration of any antibiotic. The purpose of fluoridation is to improve the dental heath of the population. (Without adverse effects. Adverse effects are not proven)

No, fluoride is a major factor in prevention of dental disease. The claims for water fluoridation is far from certain.

Fluoride is not a substance, it is a term to describe the salts of fluorine (one of the halogen elements along with Chlorine, bromine, odine and astotine). Furidation is the process of adding a flurine salt (in tis case sodium fluoride) to another chemical (in this case water) for the puropse of adding a trace element to water for health purposes.)

He was citing an EU study, BTW. As I said, far from certain. So if the 'benefit' is questionable.

The word MAY appeared in the study you quoted. So hardly a crtainty.

What other justification is left? Other than the obvious, government power expands whenever the political opportunity presents itself. Especially when they're shoving fat envelops down their pocket.

Fat envelopes? Government power??? Evidence of politicians gaining financially??

Completely unsubstantiated, and a blatant red herring.

While I am not a fan of 'big' government, sometimes politicians do act in the public interest - and not everything is a conspiracy.

[SeriousSam]

Wait this whole thread is because of the guy who thinks pasteurizing milk is a bad idea?

Actually drinking unpasteurised milk does have benefits compared to pasteurised. However, if you take other factors into account it is generally "safer" to drink the latter. Personally I prefer fresh milk as it has a far better taste.

[aidanjt]

Actually no. For drinking water (unless treatment is at the point of delivery) chlorination is preferred because it is persistant.

http://www.eurochlor.org/index.asp?page=679

As above, chemical treatmet of waer for mass distribution is referred.

Persistence isn't required when the organisms are dead. And I've seen all kinds grow around taps of chlorinated water.

You could argue that about administration of any antibiotic. The purpose of fluoridation is to improve the dental heath of the population. (Without adverse effects. Adverse effects are not proven)

Antibiotics aren't being forced on the population through the water supply. Merely prescribed on a Doctor's recommendation. And fluoride toxicity has been well documented, adverse effects have been documented, and the accuracy of the 'health benefit' is questionable and poorly weighed. If artificially fluoridating the water supply is such a huge advantage, then why are other European nations who aren't artificially increasing fluoride levels observing dental health to be significantly improved since cessation?

Fluoride is not a substance, it is a term to describe the salts of fluorine (one of the halogen elements along with Chlorine, bromine, odine and astotine). Furidation is the process of adding a flurine salt (in tis case sodium fluoride) to another chemical (in this case water) for the puropse of adding a trace element to water for health purposes.)

...

Where, exactly, did I give you the impression that fluoride was an element? I think it was pretty obvious I was talking about fluorine based compounds. And I notice this red herring glossed over my point that it's the fluoride which reinforce the enamel, not the water-borne delivery of it.

The word MAY appeared in the study you quoted. So hardly a crtainty.

It would be unscientific not to. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Making definitive assertions based on statistics is retarded.

Fat envelopes? Government power??? Evidence of politicians gaining financially??

Completely unsubstantiated, and a blatant red herring.

While I am not a fan of 'big' government, sometimes politicians do act in the public interest - and not everything is a conspiracy.

I don't agree with {big,little} government mentality, I find it an overly simplistic way of thinking about government. 'Big' government can conduct itself in a manner which is ethical and liberal, and vice versa, 'little' government can operate entirely unethically and in a rabidly authoritarian manner. While politicians often tend to just be incompetent, rather than malicious. You can't deny that authoritarian encroachment is commonplace, and often results in financial gain for some party involved. Regardless, whether it's blatant corruption, or just cronyism, it's the same problem.

This should be reason enough to disallow government from force medicating a population.

But let's break it up into pros and cons shall we?

For fluoridation:
* There may be a positive impact of healthy, fully developed teeth when delivered in that manner.
* Gives us some place to dispose of thousands of gallons of industrial waste.

Against fluoridation:
* There may be a significantly negative impact on dental health when delivered in that manner, particularly in developed countries.
* Massive quantities of fluoride is already directly and voluntarily administered to the enamel by the individual.
* Forced medicating a population is deeply unethical.
* Fluorine and many fluorides are biologically toxic, all the way down to the genetic level, even trace amounts are carcinogenic.
* Chronic exposure can cause damage to bone and undeveloped teeth. Is particularly bad for children.
* Mammalian physiology evolved to tolerate and leverage trace amounts of natural CaF2 ingestion, not NaF, AuF, etc. They are NOT chemically equal.
* 'Cheaper' fluoride solutions added to the water supply doesn't just come with the fluoride, it comes with other toxic by-products, as well.
* The tax payer is subsidising industrial processes and disposal.

Looking at the matter objectively, considerably more weighs in favour of not fluoridating the water supply. And even if the two were equal, it's better to err on the side of caution.

[floppybootstomp]

Just thought I'd mention that my teeth are looked after by the good folk on the 26th floor of Guys Hospital in London. They recommended I use Colgate Fluoriguard Alcohol Free Fluoride Mouth Rinse daily.

I can attest that it's use certainly seems to have stopped the progress of tooth decay for me. The dentists working at Guys tell me so anyway and those guys are pretty good at what they do imo

[petercook7]

erm, well i study in Glasgow Uni and we have some of the smartest guys/girls in here to do with anything dental and are well regarded as one of the most advanced dental people in the world.

i personally have not heard anything that petercook is on about, and to say that it will be ready in 5 years in laughable.
i do believe that one day, something like that will occur, just like how one day we will be able to live on the moon, but i don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

i can prove it, but not untill Jan 2012 regarding enamel regeneration. You may have studied at Glasgow Uni but there is a a very good chance you have never heard or seen the research because Glasgow isnt a partner in the bio engineering dental group.

The last 5 years have really advanced in body regeneration, and the first wave of stem cell products are hitting the market and will increase at an extraordinary rate.

Whole tooth regeneration is almost complete trials start 2014/15, tooth enamel regeneration comercialisation 2013/14, i can not proved evidence as of yet, but will be happy to post the documents at start of next year so far the the results have been very good.

[petercook7]

r j k p, question for ya...

This tooth regrowth thing peterb is on about?

Real or not?

Real so very much so.
http://techventures.columbia.edu/new...h-regeneration

Here is the first tooth grown 2009

http://www.tsuji-lab.com/en/research/tooth/09.html

[petercook7]

Just thought I'd mention that my teeth are looked after by the good folk on the 26th floor of Guys Hospital in London. They recommended I use Colgate Fluoriguard Alcohol Free Fluoride Mouth Rinse daily.

I can attest that it's use certainly seems to have stopped the progress of tooth decay for me. The dentists working at Guys tell me so anyway and those guys are pretty good at what they do imo

sedation special care?

[roachcoach]

I confess to skimming the thread, however, hasn't this been common for decades now? Surely we'd be seeing the effects by now if it was that dangerous?

As for forced medication? That's exactly the same as childhood vaccination...