# Water Fluoridation Revisited - Washington Admits Levels are Dangerous



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2011)

Well, well, well...water that is.  Drink that well water.  

http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...-EXCLUSIVE-US-says-too-much-fluoride-in-water



> The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is announcing a  proposal to change the recommended fluoride level to 0.7 milligrams per  liter of water. And the Environmental Protection Agency will review  whether the maximum cutoff of 4 milligrams per liter is too high.



The article only notes the rising incidents of dental fluorosis.  They are not addressing the increases in bone cancer, thyroid problems, and hip fractures associated with fluoridated communities.  

For the good information on these health effects, watch this video.






What bothers me the most is that according to the Government's own studies, the safe level of fluoride in water is less then 1 ppm.  This would effectively end the program.  When so many other countries have ended their Fluoridation Program based on this science, I don't understand why the US wouldn't also follow suit.

For those of you who think this is just another conspiracy theory, think again.  If you have kids you need to pay attention to this.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 28, 2011)

How do the health problems caused by fluoridation compare with the effects of the bacterial diseases that fluoridation helps prevent?

There are always tradeoffs.


----------



## granfire (Jan 28, 2011)

Do check your local water supply. Many communities have already stepped away from adding fluorite to their water. Reasons? I have no idea, I am guessing cost. It usually in their annual reports, but usually not advertised when they stop it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm really proud of the activists who persisted on this issue and pushed for independent studies to show the harm of adding fluoride to our water supply.  I was involved in trying to get it removed from my local water supply in MN and when we presented people looked at us like we had grown a new head.  The idea that this was nothing but a conspiracy theory had penetrated so deep in to the psyche of people that they were literally able to see nothing contrary to what they were told to believe.  

I think this is a good example of an issue that the media tells us ignore, but is actually substantial.


----------



## K-man (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm sorry but IMHO, *at normal levels preventing tooth decay*, the benefits of flouride outweigh the risks. When the health authorities come up with peer reviewed evidence to the contrary, I'll change my opinion. When you have any discussion that talks about waste management etc in relation to flouridation, you would have to ask why they can't stick to the debate about fluoride itself. 



> Controversies and Conspiracy Theories
> Too much fluoride at an early age can cause dental fluorosis, resulting in mottling, staining and pitting of teeth permanently. It cannot develop after teeth are fully formed and does not affect the function of the teeth. Children under the age of 5 years should not use full strength fluoride toothpaste or fluoride supplements if they live in areas with fluoridated water. Fluorosis of bones resulting in brittle bones can occur in countries such as India and Pakistan, where natural levels of fluoride in water are very high. Some members of the community are against water fluoridation due to philosophical concerns about adding any substances to community water supplies, or concerns about water fluoridation causing allergy, bone fractures, birth defects and cancer. The best scientific studies have shown that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to help protect teeth against decay. CHOICE (www.choice.com.au/) provides an excellent, balanced review of the pros and cons of water fluoridation and came to the verdict that benefits far outweighed risks from its review of the evidence.
> *Sources:*
> _http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=105619&catId=100289&tid=100008&p=1&title=Fluoride_
> ...


http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN/flfaqs.aspx#FLcancer

Just to keep things in perspective. :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Jan 28, 2011)

I read an article a week or so ago, that I can't find now, damn it, about how the widespread drinking of bottled water has lead to many more cavities.


----------



## granfire (Jan 28, 2011)

well, there is enough fluorite in tooth paste to kill a mid sized cow.

Brushing teeth is still the number one method to prevent cavaties...


----------



## Kacey (Jan 28, 2011)

So many people drink anything BUT tap water - and many of those who do drink tap water filter it - that fluoridation in water is becoming less relevant to a big chunk of the population, as it affects fewer and fewer people each year.  But like many government programs, changing the status quo can be incredibly difficult, and programs hang on through inertia, past the time when their effective lives are over - others encapsulate other programs and purposes and grow way out of proportion compared to their original intent.  Either way, I'm not sure of the answer - but weeding out programs that are no longer working the way they were intended seems like a good idea to me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2011)

K-man said:


> I'm sorry but IMHO, *at normal levels preventing tooth decay*, the benefits of flouride outweigh the risks.



Watch that video I posted and see if that changes your mind.  You can find all of the work he cites.


----------



## K-man (Jan 29, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Watch that video I posted and see if that changes your mind. You can find all of the work he cites.


 I did. All the way through.  :shrug:    It is emotive and strays from the facts.  

Sorry to disagree but the anti-fluoride lobby is a bit like the people pushing to abolish vaccinations for kids.   As I said, when peer reviewed science supports that view, I'll happily go with their research.


----------



## K-man (Jan 29, 2011)

Here's an American site to check out. 

http://www.fluorideinfo.org/fluoride_claims-vs-facts.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2011)

K-man said:


> As I said, when peer reviewed science supports that view, I'll happily go with their research.



I think you ought to reconsider.  There is plenty of peer reviewed research to document the negative health effects of water fluoridation.  There are also a raft of studies that cast doubt on the efficacy of water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay.  There is so much data all of continental Europe ended their water fluoridation programs, as did Japan, and the State of Hawaii has never allowed it because of the careful scientific work.  

Dr. Connett cites the work done by the US FDAs own scientists on the matter.  This is peer reviewed as well.  I found the anecdote that he shared about how the scientists union had to battle in order to get the government to ship in non-fluoridated water to their offices because they knew they shouldn't be drinking the tap water in Washington DC.

IMHO, one of the biggest hurdles standing in the way of people actually looking at this information is the way the media characterized the anti-fluoridation campaign.  They cast the activists as wacky conspiracy theorists who are paranoid about communists and essentially poisoned the well of critical thought.  That said, I think we all need to take a step back and understand that there are many issues that have been demonized under that pejorative.  Some of them rightly so...and some of them for political reasons...truth be damned.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2011)

50 reasons to oppose fluoride.



> *1)* Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC                1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride                deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.
> *2)* Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western                European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the                same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health                Organization in Appendix 1, and the time                trends presented graphically at http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm                ). The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating are presented                in Appendix 2.)
> *3)* Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth                decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in                the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National                Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay                among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman                1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average                difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces)                in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either                fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990).                This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth                surfaces in a child's mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically                significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government,                Dr. David Locker concluded:
> "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in                  absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may                  not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).​ *4) *Where fluoridation has been discontinued                in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland,                dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome                2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
> ...



It's time to get active, IMHO.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2011)

[yt]N1KvgtEnABY[/yt]
 :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2011)

elder999 said:


> [yt]N1KvgtEnABY[/yt]
> :lfao:



When the State delivers medication through the water supply without consent...that IS communist!  LOL!


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

Elder 999, my compliments on the find.  P.O.E.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 29, 2011)

> I read an article a week or so ago, that I can't find now, damn it, about how the widespread drinking of bottled water has lead to many more cavities.



This has been proven in many non-fluoridated water supplies that there is no increase of cavities.

There is a huge, (read multi million dollar campaign, actually several such campaigns) attacking bottled water. My simple question is what about plastic bottled soft drinks. They far far outsell bottled water, why is no one talking about how many cavties they are causing? Or how much pollution they are causing?
If this was their true concern about bottled water why not put an end to soft drinks which easily outsell bottled water?

Also what is added to the water supplies in may states is not pharmaceutical grade fluoride but actually a byproduct from the manufacturing of plastic and other materials, why not pharmaceutical grade fluoride?


----------



## granfire (Jan 29, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> This has been proven in many non-fluoridated water supplies that there is no increase of cavities.
> 
> There is a huge, (read multi million dollar campaign, actually several such campaigns) attacking bottled water. My simple question is what about plastic bottled soft drinks. They far far outsell bottled water, why is no one talking about how many cavties they are causing? Or how much pollution they are causing?
> If this was their true concern about bottled water why not put an end to soft drinks which easily outsell bottled water?
> ...




Because most people can't cook up soda at home (you can brew your own rootbeer or sasparillo...but no coke or pepsi) but almost all of us have drinking quality tap water at home. So grabbing a reusable bottle and refilling it from the tap should be second nature, reserving bottled water for travels or emergencies...

BTW, soda bottlers do - somewhat - advertise to recycle their bottles...


Also: water is actually the bigger market in beverages.Strange but true.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> Because most people can't cook up soda at home (you can brew your own rootbeer or sasparillo...but no coke or pepsi) but almost all of us have drinking quality tap water at home. So grabbing a reusable bottle and refilling it from the tap should be second nature, reserving bottled water for travels or emergencies...
> 
> BTW, soda bottlers do - somewhat - advertise to recycle their bottles...
> 
> Also: water is actually the bigger market in beverages.Strange but true



Bottled water SHOULD be reserved for travel and emergencies... but many people pay for convenience, or for the perceived higher quality or improved taste of what they're buying.  It is the *image*, not the substance, that bottled water companies are selling - and it's what people are buying.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 30, 2011)

Many kinds of bottled water are fluoridated because they come from public water supplies.  Also, bottled water has the additional problem of leaching the chemicals from the plastic.  BPA levels are high in brands that use harder bottles.

Lastly, about the fluoride that is being used, it's industrial waste and it's not just fluoride.  It's been independently tested and shown to contain over 300 different chemicals including uranium oxides.  I wouldn't drink this stuff.  Thank goodness for most of my life in MN, I drank well water.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 30, 2011)

> Also: water is actually the bigger market in beverages.Strange but true.



I don't know if I buy this, just check out your local supermarket, how much space is allocated to bottled water and how much to soft drinks. Usually, there is much more space allocated to soft drinks and less than a fourth to bottled water. Also where I work there are three seperate machines that sell drinks. One offers 8 soft drinks and two bottled waters. Another offers only sports drinks and the other offers 10 soft drinks and two bottled waters. I rarely see anyone buying the water. 

True spring water is far better than the tap water offered in most municipalities.

The best option is to buy a filtration system that filters out not just lead and chlorine but fluoride and disinfectant by-products. Usually this needs two seperate filters.
Carry your water in a glass bottle or stainless steel bottle.

This is actually the best alternative to living near a spring or well.


----------

