To all the naysayers out there:

Regardless of your stance on whether or not fluoride is toxic, it is essentially a forced medication upon the public via municipal water supplies.

I ask you, can you name any other medication that is suitable to be delivered to both a 200 pound man and a 30 pound little girl in the same quantities without monitoring reactions or ever adjusting doses?

I suspect you'll get a lot of downvotes and no answers.

Yep, vaccinations. Same dose for everyone. A two month old baby will receive the same dose as an adult. Pretty interesting huh..... Even paracetamol has dosagage requirements! Fortunately my kids aren't vaccinated and we live in a non fluoridated community.

Wrong.

That's just the influenza vaccine. Got any data for dosage amounts of the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule?

I consider myself fortunate to be born in the late 70's. My parents where hippies and very into nature, organic food, etc. That being said, parents didn't really have a choice to wether vaccinate their children or not, it was just something that everyone did and followed their doctors orders. With the development of the internet, we know have a wealth of knowledge and research at our fingertips. We also need to remeber that doctors learn this same information in their first 2 years of medical school and yes we now have access to the same resources that they do. So why go see a doctor when we have the same knowledge? We see them for their judgment and recommendations based on the expertise and experience in their field. Parents now have choices that my parents did have and honestly I'm so thankful that my parents DIDN'T have that choice. I can tell you without a doubt that my parents would have made the wrong choice when it comes to immunization.

[deleted]

Do you know what hydrofluourosilicic acid turns into when used in water fluoridation?

[deleted]

You need to do more research, then.

In water, the compound readily dissociates to sodium ions and hexafluorosilicate ions and then to hydrogen gas, fluoride ions, and hydrated silica... At the pH of drinking water (6.5-8.5) and at the concentration usually used for fluoridation (1 mg fluoride/L), the degree of hydrolysis is essentially 100%... Exposure via drinking water is, however, expected to be minimal, since at concentrations used in water fluoridation and at the normal pH of drinking water, both compounds hydrolyze almost completely. At equilibrium, the hexafluorosilicate remaining in drinking water is estimated to be <<1 parts per trillion

Link.

It most certainly does not just "dilute." It hydrolyzes at a 100% rate.

It just dilutes it, it stays in the form of fluorosilicic acid. Read the MSDS. it is STABLE when placed in an aqueous solution.

I don't know which MSDS you've been reading. Every single one of them says it is an extremely easily soluble solution.

Such as here.

Solubility: Easily soluble in cold water.

Or here.

Solubility in Water...………………..... Completely miscible.

Here.

SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Infinite with the release of heat. Soluble in water

I'm sure you get the point. Next time, do your research before fear-mongering.

This is exactly how I feel on the subject. It's been shown thoroughly that adding flouride to water has a negligible effect on dental health and the precedent that governments have the authority to medicate an entire population is a terrifying one.

Same goes with compulsory foreskin amputation.

[deleted]

but fluoride is naturally found in water to begin with

Calcium fluoride is natural. What is being introduced is sodium fluoride. Get your facts straight.

[deleted]

I was using the word "fluoride" as a general statement.

No, you were being intentionally vague and misleading, just like all your arguments.

[deleted]

You made your first statement without clarifying the different types of fluoride you claim are used. You made your claim as if sodium fluoride, which is what is put in the water is naturally occurring, therefore misleading and outright lying.

[deleted]

Sodium is not "used" at all, it exists inherently. Again, intentionally vague and misleading. I doubt you're even a dental hygienist.

[deleted]

Your comment is completely irrelevant and your appeal to authority is lame.

so it's strange that you assume that I was talking specifically about sodium fluoride.

Because that's calcium fluoride is the only kind that's naturally occurring in water. Unless you intent on misleading and being intentionally vague...

[deleted]

I meant calcium, obviously as my initial statement proved.

I does not take away from the fact that your intentionally misleading claim that sodium is naturally occurring since it's the one put in water and not inherently in it.

[deleted]

Your omission of the fact you were talking about about calcium fluoride, which is not what's even put in water since it's already in it, misleads people into thinking sodium is naturally occurring.

[deleted]

Your own source apparently claims it does. Is your source lying as well?

Actually, your link doesn't even make that distinction, again intentionally misleading.

[deleted]

You say that my source claims sodium fluoride is naturally occurring, but then change your claim?

No, you did.

You can view it as "a forced medication upon the public" but fluoride is naturally found in water to begin with. The concentration varies from each area, Africa and Kenya being naturally high concentrations of water.

and then:

Sodium is naturally occurring.

Sodium fluoride? No.

And for what the website is, it has no need to make distinctions.

What? It's a whole different compound. It makes all the difference.

[deleted]

Sodium fluoride is an inorganic chemical compound with the formula NaF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

Calcium fluoride is the inorganic compound with the formula CaF2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

Your source as well as your initial claim that's naturally ocurring is an outright lie due to the fact that what's being introduced is sodium, not calcium fluoride. They are completely different compounds that require a distinction be made. What kind of scientific source is not able to clarify this?

[deleted]

1. What is being put in water is not calcium fluoride. It occurs naturally in water.

2. You made a generic, misleading claim that sodium fluoride (which is what's put in water) is naturally occuring. It would not make any sense to claim that a naturally occuring calcium fluoride is put in water since that's not the compound being used.

Wikipedia is not reputable as a source.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting Sodium fluoride is not an inorganic chemical compound with the formula NaF and Calcium fluoride is not the inorganic compound with the formula CaF2?

Because that's all the information I used from Wikipedia.

Keep switching those goal posts. You can't avoid being exposed as a liar in any way you choose.

[deleted]

Again, I never specified what fluoride I was talking about.

Intentionally misleading by omission.

Again, are you suggesting Sodium fluoride is not an inorganic chemical compound with the formula NaF and Calcium fluoride is not the inorganic compound with the formula CaF2?

Because that's all the information I used from Wikipedia.

If it's wrong, correct me, what are the formulas?

[deleted]

I've stated that Wikipedia isn't a reputable source, not that your information was wrong

So your observation is completely irrelevant if the information is true. Questioning my source even though there was no fault in it is deflecting, and strawman which apparently you still insist on using.

Now tell me:

You can view it as "a forced medication upon the public" but fluoride is naturally found in water to begin with.

This is true about calcium.

The concentration varies from each area, Africa and Kenya being naturally high concentrations of water.

Your link deals with sodium, even though you omitted that as well as the source.

They are different compounds with different formulas. Using both ambiguously is misleading by omission, and not just "my opinion".

[deleted]

The link doesn't specify the type of fluoride, and I didn't specify.

Intentionally misleading by omission.

Bottom line: You're a liar.

[deleted]

Why would you claim something about calcium fluoride being natural and link to something which talks about sodium without mentioning they are different compounds?

[deleted]

Because no one was asking.

And you took advantage of that in order to mislead.

I was just trying to show that fluoride is found naturally in nature, and that in Africa, Kenya, and some water wells it is found in high concentrations.

Without mentioning you were talking about 2 completely different compounds.

Not getting scientific about it.

Obviously. Bye troll.

[deleted]

A lot of people DON'T realize fluoride is naturally occurring in nature.

Which is irrelevant because that's not the one being introduced artificially in the water supply.

[deleted]

It's relevant to people who don't understand fluoride is found naturally in nature.

Calcium, which is not what this post is about, so it's irrelevant.

[deleted]

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Your point is irrelevant because this post is about sodium, not calcium.

To show those who are against all forms of fluoride that it IS in fact found naturally to begin with.

Except Calcium Fluoride doesn't have the same degenerative effects of Sodium Fluoride:

It is generally considered that calcium fluoride, being much less soluble and less bioavailable than other chemical fluoride forms tested, is much less toxic than the soluble forms of fluoride.

Overall, acute exposure to soluble fluoride can induce vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory arrest, cardiac depression and gastric mucosal changes. The latter have been reported following exposure to 18 mg fluoride/kg bw administered as sodium fluoride. Haematological changes (reduced numbers of blood cellular constituents), reduced collagen synthesis, signs of trabecular bone mineralisation and increased bone matrix formation have been reported on short-term studies in animals exposed to sodium fluoride.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/ans_ej882_Calcium_fluoride_op_en.pdf?ssbinary=true

[deleted]

You assume sodium and calcium are the same, they are not. Naturally ocurring fluoride is not toxic like sodium.

"The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts put into the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found in natural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.

[deleted]

Show me the toxicity of naturally occurring calcium fluoride in comparison to sodium fluoride.

[deleted]

The U.S. CDC published that systemic blood-borne fluoride from swallowing does not affect dental caries. In fact, systemic fluoride plays the most major role in causing the current U.S. high incidence of tooth fluorosis in children that prompted the U.S Health and Human Services to request in 2011 that water added fluoride be lowered from ~1ppm to 0.7ppm. But this is not expected to eliminate the problem.

Fluoride in drinking water whether natural or unnatural has no functional purpose. In fact this statement was published in the textbook written by dentist Dr. George Heard who first proposed to the Public Health Service in 1950 the idea that natural fluoride in water might be of benefit for tooth decay. He apologized later for the extrapolation in a letter to the U.S. Health and Human Services after finding that children raised on water with fluoride developed crumbly teeth interiors.

In another animal study 1ppm artificial fluoridated drinking water did not decrease incidence of spontaneous dental caries. Thus fluoride does not affect teeth caries by either a systemic mechanism after assimilation or by direct contact with teeth surfaces from either fluoridated saliva or from treated water in the tested animals.

It is not possible to reach an acute lethal blood level of industrial fluoride from treated water unless there were an accidental overfeed. 1ppm water leads typically to ~0.2ppm blood fluoride. But only ~1ppm blood levels cause a chronic form of congestive heart failure (found after hemodialysis with fluoridated water) and 2-3ppm causes acute heart failure.

Ingested sodium fluoride from treated water does not reduce caries either systemically at 0.2ppm or topically from saliva at 0.02ppm. Instead it increases the incidence of unsightly abnormal dental fluorosis hypoplasia in all treated cities.

Human case studies proved that abdominal discomfort occurs from drinking 1ppm artificially fluoridated water.

...salmon are unaffected by natural 1 ppm fluoride in ocean water where calcium is extremely high but are narcotized by industrial fluoride in soft water at only 0.3ppm

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

[deleted]

For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

No sources. Nice.

This statement was created by two dentists working for the Oral Health division of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of the two main promoters of fluoridation. The CDC has refused all requests to substantiate this claim with scientific evidence.

In animals? Animals that don't brush, floss, or have the same diet habits as humans?

Did you know most scientific studies are conducted on animals first?

In the 1930s, dental scientists documented that bla bla bla

My study is from 2013, so it trumps yours.

It's not POSSIBLE to get the acute lethal blood level of fluoride from water fluoridation, therefore blood levels of 1ppm, or 2-3ppm will NEVER HAPPEN.

No citizens have yet been exposed to industrial fluoride treated water for an entire human average lifetime of 75 years even though retained fluoride accumulates during chronic continuous exposure.

Anyways, NONE of this is present with naturally occurring calcium fluoride, which you misleadingly stated.

[deleted]

Fluoride is not a nutrient, nor is it essential for healthy teeth. No study has ever revealed a diseased state resulting from lack of fluoride, including dental caries. (1,2) No American is, or ever was, “fluoride deficient.”

*Using the water supply to mass medicate the population is unethical. The public water supply should not be used as a drug-delivery system without regard for an individual's age, weight, health status, or knowledge of how fluoride will interact with other drugs they are taking. No informed consent is requested or given, and no medical follow-up is offered. *

The benefit and safety of ingested fluoride has never been proved by accepted medical standards. The HHS has failed to inform the public that there is not a single randomized controlled trial (the gold standard of medical research) that demonstrates the effectiveness of water fluoridation. (3) HHS has also failed to inform the public that the Food and Drug Administration has never studied, or approved, the safety of fluoride supplements and continues to classify all fluoride supplements as “unapproved new drugs.” (4, 5) Lastly, HHS has failed to inform the public that tooth decay rates have declined at the same general rate in all western, industrialized countries, irrespective of water fluoridation status. (6)

Any benefits of fluoride are primarily topical, not systemic. The CDC has acknowledged this for over a decade (7). The Iowa Fluoride Study, funded by HHS, has reported little, if any, relationship between individual fluoride intake and caries experience. According to the study (the largest of its kind): “achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake." (8)

Americans will still be over-exposed to fluoride at 0.7 ppm. According to EPA’s recent documents “it is likely that most children, even those that live in fluoridated communities, can be over-exposed to fluoride at least occasionally. (9) At present, nearly 41% of American adolescents aged 12-15 have some form of dental fluorosis (10), an outwardly visible sign of fluoride toxicity. Reducing the fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm will not remedy this problem as national statistics clearly show that dental fluorosis remains significantly elevated at 0.7 ppm. (11) Drinking water is just one source of ingested fluoride; others include foods, beverages, dental products and supplements, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. For communities that practice artificial water fluoridation, this is the easiest source of fluoride to remove.

Infants will not be protected. Infants fed formula made with fluoridated tap water—at the reduced level of 0.7 ppm—will still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant.** In their supporting documents, EPA has not calculated the risks to the bottle-fed infant. In fact, infants from birth to six months of age were completely excluded from any consideration by EPA, despite HHS’s own admission that “The period of possible risk for fluorosis in the permanent teeth…extends from about birth through 8 years of age." (12) As the most susceptible subpopulation, the potential for long-term, irreparable damage to developing infants must be seriously considered, and should extend beyond just their teeth.

African-American children and low-income children will not be protected. HHS’s reference (p. 2386) to the study by Sohn et al. (13) failed to mention that African-American and low-income children were found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride from drinking water, than white or higher-income children. African-Americans have been shown to have an increased risk of developing dental fluorosis, and are at higher risk for suffering from the more severe forms of this condition. (14) Despite receiving high intakes of fluoride, low-income and minority children living in fluoridated communities continue to suffer from rampant and severe dental decay (15-18)—undermining the common premise that fluoridation will prevent these problems. Additionally, low-income children have a greater risk for suffering from all forms of fluoride toxicity, as poor diet exacerbates the detrimental effects of fluoride. This is clearly, therefore, an environmental justice issue.

HHS has failed to consider fluoride’s impact on the brain. Over 100 animal studies have observed fluoride-induced brain damage (19), 24 human studies have reported lowered IQ in children exposed to various levels of fluoride (20), and at least 6 other studies have found non-IQ neurological effects such as impaired visuo-spatial organization. (21-26) One study of 500 children in China observed reduced IQ at a water fluoride level of 1.9 ppm (27, 28) and another reported a reduction in IQ at even lower (mean=1.3 ppm) water fluoride levels. (29) HHS’s new recommendation of 0.7 ppm offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all of our children, including those with iodine deficiencies (30-32), from experiencing similar neurological damage.

HHS has failed to consider fluoride as an endocrine disruptor. The 2006 NRC report (33) states that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, and even at low levels can be detrimental to the thyroid gland. Pre- and post-natal babies, people with kidney disease, and above-average water drinkers (including diabetics and lactating women) are especially susceptible to the endocrine disrupting effects of fluoride in drinking water.

HHS has failed to consider or investigate current rates of skeletal fluorosis in the U.S. According to EPA's supporting document (34), there is a general lack of information on the prevalence of stage II skeletal fluorosis in the U.S. Yet, many of the symptoms of stage II skeletal fluorosis (e.g. sporadic pain, stiffness of the joints) are identical to arthritis (35-40), which affects at least 46 million Americans. People with renal insufficiency are known to be at an elevated risk for developing skeletal fluorosis (33), as crippling stage III skeletal fluorosis with renal deficiency has been documented in the U.S. at water fluoride levels as low as 1.7 ppm. (41) Since skeletal fluorosis in kidney patients has been detected in small case studies, it is likely that systematic studies would detect skeletal fluorosis at even lower fluoride levels.

HHS has failed to consider fluoride as a potential carcinogen. Bassin et al. (42) reported a significantly elevated risk of osteosarcoma in boys living in fluoridated communities, and thus fluoride may be a carcinogen. Chester Douglass, who has serious conflicts-of-interest concerning fluoride research, has stated that a subsequent study will refute these findings (43), but no publication has appeared in the five years since he made this claim. As EPA has still not completed carcinogenicity testing for fluoride, HHS should not support the addition of a potential carcinogen to our drinking water.

HHS has failed to confirm the safety of silicofluorides. Despite being used in more than 90% of artificial water fluoridation schemes, no chronic toxicity testing of silicofluorides has ever been completed: “No short-term or subchronic exposure, chronic exposure, cytotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, teratology, carcinogenicity, or initiation/promotion studies were available” for the toxicological summary for silicofluorides, as prepared for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (44) However, recent epidemiological research has found an association between the use of silicofluoride-treated community water and increased blood lead concentrations in children (45) – a link that is consistent with recent laboratory findings. (46) HHS has failed to inform the American public that the fluoridating agent used in drinking water is a hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry, and can be laced with arsenic and radionuclides, (47, 48) which are known carcinogens. HHS should not support the addition of a non-tested substance to our drinking water.

Sources in the next comment.

References:

1. National Research Council. 1993. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Page 30.
2. Letter from the Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. and others. January 12, 1999.
3. McDonagh M, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Cooper J, Misso K, Bradley M, Treasure E, Kleijnen J. 2000. A systematic review of public water fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York.
4. Kelly JV. 1993. Letter from John V. Kelly, Assemblyman 36th District, New Jersey State Legislature, to Dr. David Kessler, M.D., Commissioner, United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland. June 3.
5. Plaisier MK. 2000. Letter from Melinda K. Plaisier, Associate Commissioner for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, to Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington DC. December 21.
6. Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries. Fluoride Action Network.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR 50(RR14):1-42. August 17.
8. Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B, Cavanaugh JE, Kanellis MJ, Weber-Gasparoni K. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes—a longitudinal study. J Pub Health Dent 69(2):111-5.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2010. Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis. EPA 820-R-10-015. Page 109.
10. Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker L, Dye BA. 2010. Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS data brief, no 53. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
11. Heller KE, Eklund SA, Burt BA. 1997 Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. J Public Health Dent. 57(3):136-43. Figure 4.
12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. January 2011. Proposed HHS recommendation for fluoride concentration in drinking water for prevention of dental caries. Federal Register 76(9):2383-8.
13. Sohn W, Heller KE, Burt BA. 2001. Fluid consumption related to climate among children in the United States. J Pub Health Dent 61(2):99-106.
14. Beltrán-Aguilar E, Barker L, Dye BA. 2010. Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS Data Brief.
15. Burt BA, Kolker JL, Sandretto AM, Yuan Y, Sohn W, Ismail AI. 2006. Dietary patterns related to caries in a low-income adult population. Caries Research 40(6):473-80.
16. Shiboski CH, Gansky SA, Ramos-Gomez F, Ngo L, Isman R, Pollick HF. 2003. The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. J Pub Health Dent 63(1):38-46.
17. VVon Burg MM, Sanders BJ, Weddell JA. 1995. Baby bottle tooth decay: a concern for all mothers. Pediatric Nursing 21(6):515-9.
18. Barnes GP, Parker WA, Lyon TC Jr, Drum MA, Coleman GC. 1992. Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of head start children. Public Health Reports 107(2):167-73.
19. Connett P, Beck J, Micklem H S. 2010. The Case Against Fluoride. How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Appendix 1,
20. Fluoride and IQ: The Studies. Fluoride Action Network. Updated January 2010.
21. Rocha-Amador D, Navarro M, Trejo-Acevedo A, Carrizales L, Pérez-Maldonado I, Díaz-Barriga F, Calderón J. 2009. Use of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test for neurotoxicity evaluation of mixtures in children. Neurotoxicology 30(6):1149-54.
22. Li J, Yao L, Shao QL, Wu CY. 2004. Effects of high fluoride level on neonatal neurobehavioural development. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 23:464-465 (republished in Fluoride 41:165-70).
23. Calderon J, Machado B, Navarro M, Carrizales L, Ortiz MD, Diaz-Barriga F. 2000. Influence of fluoride exposure on reaction time and visuospatial organization in children. Epidemiology 11(4):S153.
24. Yu Y, Yang W, Dong Z, Wan C, Zhang J, Liu J, Xiao K, Huang Y, Lu B. 1996. Neurotransmitter and receptor changes in the brains of fetuses from areas of endemic fluorosis. Chinese J Endemiology 15: 257-259 (republished in Fluoride 41(2):134-8).
25. Du L. 1992. The effect of fluorine on the developing human brain. Chinese Journal of Pathology 21(4):218-20 (republished in Fluoride 41:327-30).
26. Han H, Cheng Z, Liu W. 1989. Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138 (republished in Fluoride 41:321-6).
27. Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Wang C, Chen B, Chen X, Zhou M. 2003. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94.
28. Xiang Q, Liang Y, Zhou M, Zang H. 2003. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36(3):198-9.
29. Ding Y, Gao Y, Sun H, Han H, Wang W, Ji X, Liu X, Sun D. 2010. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. J Hazard Materials doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.097.
30. Ge Y, Niu R, Zhang J, Wang J. 2011. Proteomic analysis of brain proteins of rats exposed to high fluoride and low iodine. Archives of Toxicology 85(1):27-33.
31. Guan ZZ, Zhuang ZJ, Yang PS, Pan S. 1988. Synergistic action of iodine deficiency and fluorine intoxication on rat thyroid. Chin Med J 101(9):679-84.
32. Lin FF, Aihaiti, Zhao HX, Jin L, Jiang JY, Maimaiti, and Aiken. 1991. The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter 7(3).
33. National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 507 pp.
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2010. Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis for Non-cancer Effects. EPA 820-R-10-019.

35. Gupta R, Kumar AN, Bandhu S, Gupta S. 2007. Skeletal fluorosis mimicking seronegative arthritis. Scandanavian Journal of Rheumatology 36(2):154-5.

36. Savas S, Cetin M, Akdogan M, Heybell N. 2001. Endemic fluorosis in Turkish patients: relationship with knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International 21:30-5.

37. Hileman B. 1988. Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News, 26-42. August 1.

38. Czerwinski E, Nowak J, Dabrowska D, Skolarczyk A, Kita B, Ksiezyk M. 1988. Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health 43:340-3.

39. Teotia SPS, Teotia M, Teotia NPS. 1976. Symposium on the Non-Skeletal Phase of Chronic Fluorosis: The Joints. Fluoride 9:19-24

40. Singh A, Jolly SS. 1970. Chronic toxic effects on the skeletal system. In: Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization. pp. 238-49..

41. Johnson WJ, Taves DR, Jowsey J. 1979. Fluoridation and bone disease. Pp. 275-293 in: Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. E Johansen, DR Taves, and TO Olsen, eds. AAAS Selected Symposium. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

42. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17(4):421-8.

43. Douglass CW, Joshipura K. 2006. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes and Control 17(4):481-2.

44. Haneke KE and Carson BL. 2001. Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [CASRN 16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid [CASRN 16961-83-4]: Review of Toxicological Literature. Prepared for Scott Masten, Ph.D., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Contract No. N01-ES-65402.

45. Coplan MN, Patch SC, Masters RD, Bachman MS. 2007. Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology Sep;28(5):1032-42.

46. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. 2007. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology Sep;28(5):1023-31.

47. Hanmer R. 1983. Letter to Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D, from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA. Mar 30, 1983.

48. Hazan S. 2000. Letter from Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, NSF International; to Mr. Juan (Pepe) Menedez, State of Florida, Department of Public Health, Tallahassee FL. April 24.

[deleted]

Biased? I cited the CDC even. I think you mean inconvenient, LOL.

Bottom of that link:

Disclaimer All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.

LOL

[deleted]

It is the SAME CDC source I've already given you, here

Disclaimer All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.

[deleted]

Because for some biased reason, you believe that document is reliable when the CDC itself says it should not be relied on. Can you read?

[deleted]

Do you have a link to the original, complete PDF? Or do you just satisfy with limited, biased information?

[deleted]

Do you have the original or not?

You argue I shouldn't rely on Wikipedia even after admitting my use of it had no fault, but when the CDC says you should not rely on the information presented you're satisfied with that? LOL

Since you cannot provide the original document, I will not consider that source until you do.

What is biased about it?

The government is responsible for sodium fluoride in water, the CDC is a government agency. Do you even know what biased means?

[deleted]

The information doesn't have any fault in the source.

Because you're clearly biased. You're incapable of mentioning a single independent source that doesn't have government connections.

[deleted]

From this whole discussion, I can conclude two things.

1. You're not a dentist

2. Your a government apologist

You have no credibility at all if you use a government agency to give credibility to mass poisoning of the population by government.

[deleted]

I never said I was a dentist. (?)

I'm a registered dental hygienist and have researched this topic extensively, as fluoride is directly in my field of work.

Avoid discussing semantics if that's your excuse, it will just make you look desperate.

This is your opinion.

It's fact. There is no reason to believe the CDC would oppose fluoridation if it receives funding from government.

Then again logic is not your strong point.

I see also you proved my point as how you have not provided a single independent source in favor of fluoridation from non-government sources

I have cited 48 sources which you have not been able to debunk as well. LOL

[deleted]

Please look up the difference between dentist and dental hygienist. Please. That is really embarrassing.

Semantics desperation. I told you.

Again, another opinion.

Logic. Not your strong point.

Actually, no, because you haven't found an independent source (credible) that is against water fluoridation.

48 sources which you have not been able to debunk.

I have cited 270

All government related, as I mentioned and your illiteracy has not been able to acknowledge how that would be a conflict of interest to bad mouth who pays you.

[deleted]

Your 48 sources include a CDC source,

For context relating the negative effects. Then again a trait of illiteracy is known to be incapacity to read or comprehend text.

I doubt you are a dental hygienist.

[deleted]

because it's what you want to hear

And your case is different how?

Do you or don't you stand behind the biased 48 source page you sent me?

All 48 are not from the CDC. Learn to read.

Because the biased 48 source

You still have no idea what that word means.

Ok, since I feel like I'm debating a 2 year old, I'll make it even easier.

1. Government puts fluoride in the water

2. CDC is government funded

CDC is biased. Any questions little guy?

[deleted]

Glad you have your information correct here.

Yay, you're learning. Now, why would the CDC ever produce a study against fluoridation?

[deleted]

There are plenty of studies

[citation needed] LOL

the government has made the choice to support water fluoridation based on data.

Data it funded.

As for the legitimacy of the CDC itself:

http://www.wmtw.com/news/legislative-panel-mulls-allowing-secret-testimony-in-shredding-scandal/24974182

High-level CDC employees, including the director, admitted that they changed a grant bidding process to get different results and then tried to destroy the documents that showed the original outcome.

So they destroy inconvenient truths. How about that! LOL

[deleted]

Oh yeah, and it's from the CDC, so you don't trust it anyway.

Because proof I have provided shows they are corrupt. Derp.

You think these employees reflect the CDC as a whole?

The DIRECTOR was involved, so I'd say it reflects poorly on the institution, but keep on licking their balls since you think it tastes sooooo good. Derp!

[deleted]

You showed the corruption of PEOPLE who worked in the CDC.

Institutions are ran by people, or is there some other ethereal entity responsible I should know about? LOL

A shocking report from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) presented data from two different sources demonstrating that the 2009/10 H1N1 vaccines contributed to an estimated 1,588 miscarriages and stillbirths. A corrected estimate may be as high as 3,587 cases. NCOW also highlights the disturbing fact that the CDC failed to inform their vaccine providers of the incoming data of the reports of suspected H1N1 vaccine related fetal demise.

http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Final%20Press%20Release%20CDC%20Allegedly%20falsified.htm

New JAMA Study Challenges CDC's 400,000 Obesity Deaths Figure Research Concludes Obesity-Related Deaths Are One-Fourth That of Embattled CDC Statistic; Center for Consumer Freedom Asks Agency to Repudiate Its Contested Figure

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-jama-study-challenges-cdcs-400000-obesity-deaths-figure-54349482.html

CDC falsifying reports yet again? You don't say!

Aaannd you've just displayed your immaturity + how stupid you sound.

I figured dumbing down my rhetoric would make it easier for you to understand, no offence intended. Sorry if I misunderstood! LOL

Congratulations, you've won!

Since the very beginning, chum.

[deleted]

People aren't perfect.

But about fluoride, they're infallible, right? LOL

A few people do not reflect an entire organization.

If those "few people" include high-level CDC employees and the director, I'd take it in good faith the institution is corrupt, or at least untrustworthy. Your blind faith is quite astounding, perhaps they should study your brain to look for any signs of dementia, although I can't guarantee the accuracy of the results LOL.

However, both sources are talking about is the CDC being wrong about "estimates".

Being wrong is being wrong, regardless. If they screw up once, or twice as I have proved, the chance this is more frequent is pretty likely.

[deleted]

The entire organization.

Conjecture.

And it wasn't corruption of data, it was trying to control exactly where the funding would go.

My example illustrated corrupt behavior. Sorry if it went over your head and confused you. Besides dementia, your naïveness in assuming only 1 agency is capable of corruption is absolutely adorable. Blind faith and naïve, you sound like the 2 year old I described earlier.

Your CDC link is from August 17, 2001, now check this shit out, brosef:

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride November 13, 2010 - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/13/cdc-and-ada-now-advise-to-avoid-using-fluoride.aspx

Woopsie! Hmm, this is not on the 2001 report. Odd isn't it?

Fun fact from that article:

It was 2007 when the American Dental Association (ADA) first warned that parents of infants younger than a year old "should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride"

Since it's the ADA, shouldn't you know about this? You haven't mentioned it once! Amazing, huh.

[deleted]

No, fact.

This in no way proved this is agreed on by all agencies in the same way corruption from 1 extends to the whole as you claimed yourself.

Your study

Not mine, the CDCs and ADAs.

dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride

Which cannot be measured since it's in more than just tap water. This guideline is completely useless in the way it's suggested since no one actively monitors, measures or has individual medical support at all times.

There is no way to measure fluoride intake on a daily basis, therefore nullifying this suggestion.

The best way to do this is eliminate sodium fluoride from all sources and only those that need it should take it, but then again there is no evidence anyone needs it or has any deficiency from lack of it.

Evidence shows, fluoride or no fluoride, dental health in regards to caries is exactly the same.

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

Regardless if you consider this "biased", the evidence itself that is presented is neutral and cannot be attributed to bias since it cites sources from the WHO.

[deleted]

dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride

Which you still cannot give any useful advice on accomplishing this, like I said since no one actively monitors, measures or has individual medical support at all times. Any regular medication intake requires medical observation, which is not present with water fluoridation. In this context this practice is completely unethical.

You still failed to prove anyone needs it or has any deficiency from lack of it based on those studies done by the WHO. If this medication has no evidence to support its benefit it shouldn't be used at all. It's a useless toxic.

Prove anyone needs this.

[deleted]

It's not a medication.

It's dental treatment applied without consent and proof of benefits.

Arsenic, lead, nitrate, selenium and uranium. All added to improve health.

Lead. Improve health. Fluoride has already done you some brain damage, son.

"Fluoride has beneficial effects on teeth at low concentrations in drinking-water" and "low levels of fluoride, less than 0.1 mg 1–1, were associated with high levels of dental decay". Fluoride helps prevent tooth decay.

Fluoridation is Not effective in reducing tooth decay. Tooth decay declined more in many non-fluoridated developed countries that in the US. - World Health Organization Data (2004) - Tooth Decay Trends (12 year olds) in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries

An Overwhelming Number of Scientific Studies Conclude That Cavity Levels are Falling Worldwide … Even In Countries Which Don’t Fluoridate Water

Further evidence of the ineffectiveness of water fluoridation is that the scientific literature shows that – when fluoridation of water supplies is stopped – cavities do not increase (but may in some cases actually decrease). See this, this, this, this, this and this.

[deleted]

Those things are IN water for various reasons

You classified lead as being beneficial before blatantly removing that part of your comment.

There are proof of benefits.

I'm just going to ignore the biased fluoride websites,

Biased as in, sites that debunk your claims so you willfully ignore evidence. The data is from the WHO, but if you feel attacking the messenger to avoid the evidence, more power to you, but you lose all credibility you still think you have in the process.

Your "confounding variable" claims only prove that as people get older, their dental habits improve, which is also nothing but conjecture, there is no evidence to prove this, and since children are warned specifically to avoid it, it makes those that would need it, if it were proved to be the case, an extremely small group, not worth polluting whole water sources just to satisfy a tiny group that would have any benefit if there was such a thing.

I have proved fluoride is harmful and brings no benefits considering non-fluoridaded countries have not experienced any increase in tooth decay.

Arguments that ignore these facts are nothing but a testament of fluoride's corrosive power on the brain or a excellent example of willful ignorance worthy of case studies.

[deleted]

I have already refuted your websites claims with my own.

No, you haven't. Claiming you did is not proof, proof is proof.

the children got sealants after water fluoridation stopped

Did all the children in those countries that stopped fluoridation started using sealants? No.

I attribute the reduction of decay to age.

And you cannot prove dental habits improved with age, this is speculation and conjecture.

Children get more cavities than adults.

Which is not attributed to lack of fluoride in the water. No evidence supports this.

As children grow up, they have better dexterity to properly brush their teeth.

Conjecture.

The main benefits occur while the teeth are developing but continue throughout the life.

Except children receive warnings to avoid and newborns are strongly advised against using it in baby formula, and any grown human knows how to brush, therefore eliminating any need of fluoridated water.

Washingtonsblog.com includes unreliable data

Which you haven't had the capacity to acknowledge, so you attack the platform since it's easier.

So, removing this easily employed tactic, I challenge you to defend your flawed theory on evidence:

Science magazine noted in 1982:

The decline in caries prevalence in communities without fluoridated water in various countries is well documented. The cause or causes are, at this time, a matter of speculation.

The Journal of Public Health Dentistry noted in 1985:

Even the most cursory review of the dental literature since 1978 reveals a wealth of data documenting a secular, or long term, generalized decline in dental caries throughout the Western, industrialized world. Reports indicate that this decline has occurred in both fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas, and in the presence and absence of organized preventive programs.

The prestigious science journal Nature noted in 1986:

[D]uring the period 1979-81, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas. The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time

The Journal of the American Dental Association noted in 1988:

The current reported decline in caries tooth decay in the US and other Western industrialized countries has been observed in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same

The Boston Globe reported in 1989:

The debate over fluoridating public water supplies, a measure long credited with producing a dramatic drop in tooth decay in the United States, is being rekindled by new studies suggesting the decline may have more to do with other causes, including other sources of fluoride.

The most exhaustive study ever conducted on the dental health of American children, conducted in 1986-87, has confirmed the great decline in cavities in the last 10 years, but it found much less difference than expected between areas with and without fluoridated water.

The Journal of Public Health Dentistry noted in 1991:

During the past 40 years dental caries has been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world... The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride-deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentrifices, have made a major contribution.

The Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine noted in 2002:

It is remarkable, however, that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world (for reviews, see Glass, 1982; Fejerskov and Baelum, 1998) has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation (Bratthall et al., 1996), but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products (Marthaler, 1990; Scheie, 1992). This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.

The International Society of Fluoride Research noted in 2005:

Graphs of tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in 24 countries, prepared using the most recent World Health Organization data, show that the decline in dental decay in recent decades has been comparable in 16 nonfluoridated countries and 8 fluoridated countries which met the inclusion criteria of having (i) a mean annual per capita income in the year 2000 of US$10,000 or more, (ii) a population in the year 2000 of greater than 3 million, and (iii) suitable WHO caries data available. The WHO data do not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades.

The British Medical Journal noted in a 2007 paper:

Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.

Clinical Oral Investigations noted in 2007:

In most European countries, where community water fluoridation has never been adopted, a substantial decline in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades, with reductions in lifetime caries experience exceeding 75%.

And the Globe and Mail wrote in 2010:

There has also been a worldwide reduction in cavity rates, regardless of whether countries use the chemical, suggesting factors other than adding it to water supplies are at work.

Bias removed, facts remains. Like I said, fluoride is harmful and brings no benefits considering non-fluoridaded countries have not experienced any increase in tooth decay, rendering fluoride useless in any practical sense.

[deleted]

See the history of this discussion.

I did, and saw nothing resembling proof.

it is clear to ME with my OWN clinical evaluations that adults brush better than adults

Which proves your argument relies on subjectivity and conjecture, not scientific evidence.

If you had any dental background you'd see pretty much the same thing

You don't have any either.

Lack of fluoride doesn't cause cavities.

So you agree it's unnecessary, you're on the path to enlightenment again. Good for you.

The presence of fluoride prevents cavities.

Again, no scientific evidence corroborates this, just speculation.

there are levels set for young children

Which proves it's harmful if overexposed, and since fluoride cannot be measured, makes it a poison.

I'm qualified to actually have an opinion on water fluoridation because I have researched both sides extensively, and I am a registered dental hygienist.

Conjecture. You cannot prove any of these claims.

I have already stated that those I've seen with horrible (decayed) teeth came from families who proclaimed "anti fluoride" for all to hear.

Fairy tales. You cannot use made up stories as any type of scientifically backed evidence. Stop making shit up you can't prove.

You act like fluoride is supposed to be this miraculous cure-all thing.

No, you do.

Cavities should not be taken lightly. It is a disease that can cause MAJOR health problems and even death if not treated.

No one is debating this, this is a red herring and deflection. Stick to the topic.

The issue is that fluoride does nothing in regards to dental health, as stated by various instituions worldwide. Ignoring statements made by those specialists is admission they are right since you have not provided evidence to the contrary.

[deleted]

Opinion. You aren't willing to accept the data from CDC, WHO, ADA

And you admittedly ignore evidence under the "bias" excuse, not evidence.

No, my own clinical experience adds to my support of water fluoridation

I can make my own tests too, doesn't mean the outcome is correct.

Here is my professional license.

If my printer had any ink, I could whip up a diploma from Harvard stating I graduated in any field I wanted.

Prevention is unnecessary??

Stramanw, I never stated this.

So... you put your trust in what a science magazine wrote in 1982

Current studies make no mention older ones are suddenly invalid.

young people have a specific set of guidelines

Which cannot be followed practically.

A WHO source I cited from earlier stated that lack of fluoride had a higher incidence of caries.

You also said lack of fluoride doesn't cause cavities. So which one is it?

Really? Please elaborate.

You're the one preaching the benefits, not me.

You are ignoring my statements.

Besides ignoring mine, you're contradicting yourself.

[deleted]

Any researcher would dismiss your biased fluoride page.

Biased becuse it goes against your own prejudice, not due to the facts presented. Again, you have no knowledge of what biased means.

There are multiple sources that have tested fluoride.

Your whole paragraph doesn't cite a single source, therefore disregarded.

A magazine vs the CDC, ADA, and WHO data?

The British Medical Journal noted in a 2007 paper:

Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.

Nitpicking just one source does not prove anything but your own prejudice against facts.

Yes it can be.

Give an example of a practical method of fluoride intake for all ages considering all sources in which fluoride can be found. Also, and again, your whole rhetoric does not cite a single source but your own imagination and prejudice against facts.

Yes. The benefits of fluoride prevent cavities.

Unproven by the WHO.

No.

Yes.

Fluoride doesn't treat anything.

Lack of fluoride doesn't cause cavities.

[deleted]

No, biased because of the way the website displays information.

LOL, pay attention to the information, maybe you'll learn something.

I've given them how many times?

None of them credible. I have refuted every one.

I've never disagreed that caries levels have dropped over the years.

This is not due to fluoridated water, as I've proved before.

If caries were no longer a highly prevalent issue, dentists would go out of business.

This is not my problem. I have to tolerate fluoride to keep dentists in business? LOL See, it's about jobs, not "caries prevention".

WATER FLUORIDATION.

In that whole deflection, you failed to mention a guide as to how one would practically manage fluoride intake considering all sources which contain the toxic.

And how am I contradicting myself?

Fluoride doesn't treat anything.

Lack of fluoride doesn't cause cavities.

[deleted]

Actually, you haven't.

Yeah I have.

Not due solely to fluoridated water, you mean.

Your interpretation.

Decay keeps dentists in business

So why are you so "ferociously" ranting for the benefits of a toxic that could put you out of business? LOL

Fluoride is PREVENTATIVE

No, it's not. Decay has gone down regardless. It's a useless toxic.

I've discussed this many, many times.

Discussing is not giving a practical guide. Learn to interpret what I'm asking for, or just settle that it's not possible and such guidelines for the control of fluoride exposure is totally meaningless.

How does stating "Fluoride doesn't treat anything" and "Lack of fluoride doesn't cause cavities" contradict myself?

Because I hope you understand English?

Lack of fluoride has been shown with a higher correlation of decay

Nope.

The British Medical Journal noted in a 2007 paper:

Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.

[deleted]

Water fluoridation isn't the sole preventative measure against cavities.

It's not a measure at all.

I don't treat decay

Neither you or fluoride. We're screwed!

It is not meant to be a set number that you can have, or a prescription.

Then why are there guidelines? What's their purpose?

Fluoride is preventative.

Unconfirmed.

[deleted]

2 questions:

1. Who are you trying to convince/lie to?

2. What would you say is the recommended amount of sunscreen I should ingest for best results?

Thanks!

[deleted]

Is sunscreen meant to be ingested?

I don't know, you seem to think topical remedies work systemically, so I'm interested if you know how much I have to drink of the stuff.

[deleted]

water fluoridation gets into the saliva, which topically touches the teeth.

AAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha this is hilarious! So if I don't swish it around it's worthless, again. So between outright guzzling and swishing, there is no way to know just how much of this toxic is entering my organism. Again proving you have no way to regulate intake. Way to go, detective!

When have I ever (or anyone) stated that sunscreen works by ingesting it?

The moment you said ingesting a topical chemical helps systemically. You are the one trolling. And a good one! LOL

[deleted]

It is not toxic at low amounts.

So it's a toxic nonetheless. Got it.

Anything is toxic in high amounts, even water.

Except I don't need fluoride to live. Dumb observation.

And if you're going to call this stuff lethal

You just did.

That's why it is set at optimum levels.

What's this? Not giving a practical way to regulated intake? Say it ain't so! LOL

so that people have sufficient amounts

Except you have no way of knowing just how much is being ingested. LOL

I never said "topical chemical helps systemically"

Because it doesn't. But you insist that's what this toxic does. Contradict much? L O fucking L

Ahahahahahaha.....

Sunscreen, on the other hand, is meant only to be applied to the skin.

As is fluoride on teeth if there ever was a need, which there isn't.

It has no relation to teeth at all and isn't ingested.

I never said it was for teeth. I want to know how much I should drink to get sun protection on my skin, which according to your "logic" is the case with fluoride.

It is never meant to enter the body.

As is fluoride.

You're a funny guy! Shame it took me so long to realize you were trolling. Should've suspected after that "certificate" you had printed out just for me. LOL

[deleted]

water can be toxic at high amounts

And water is required for life, as is oxygen, not fluoride. Dumb observation is sustained.

It is preventative.

Questionable.

When?

It is not toxic at low amounts. Anything is toxic in high amounts, even water.

This is a confirmation that this unnecessary-to-life toxic has the capacity to kill you.

Many, many studies have shown how fluoride helps prevent cavities.

All biased. You don't have any sources from unompromised institutions, therefore not credible.

I'd call that a need.

You, exclusively.

Why are you comparing the two?

Because you think drinking chemicals help where it's topically needed, if at all.

It is in the saliva for a brief period of time

How brief? No one knows! Even you. How much fluoride is in that "brief period"? No one knows, not even you!

Did you not start this whole argument on the fact that calcium fluoride is found naturally in water sources in nature and that you felt I was "misleading" by using fluoride as a general statement?

Yeah but seeing you squirm about everything else has served as entertainment for me.

where I could have printed my professional license online.

This assuming you actually had a site make it up. Photoshop is not that hard.

[deleted]

Your ignorance amuses me, indefinitely! Drink your fluoride, perhaps you can be a great standup comedian in the future!

I made you a new license you can print out just as easy! LOL

[deleted]

And you are the one who copies and pastes without reading the bullshit you're parroting, lead is healthy, remember?

Posting that link also proves your immaturity.

Not defending your fake license is admission it's a fake, and if you went that far to try and prove a lie, all your arguments are equally as counterfeit.

[deleted]

I already stated I did that in error.

Something simple like copy and paste becomes tough, imagine scientific texts! You do that a lot. All the time, actually. Unfortunate how you are only able to see the more obvious ones.

And I have already stated

Then call me Mr. President! Because I said so. My printer is out of ink, else I would've printed a license for that. LOL

[deleted]

You're adorable, Mr. President. Oh wait no, that's me, I keep getting all these fake licenses mixed up.

[deleted]

Something you ingest to create a desired biological result = medication. Do you take meds without a doctor knowing about it so you don't exceed the limit? Why "suggest" you regulate the intake to avoid fluorosis if you can't possibly keep track of it?

I've given you plenty of support (from multiple sources) that it has a benefit.

All which have been thoroughly refuted.

[deleted]

Since when are vitamins and minerals considered medication?

Since the definition.

They do not need approval from the FDA before they are marketed.

The Food and Drug Administration has never studied, or approved, the safety of fluoride supplements and continues to classify all fluoride supplements as "unapproved new drugs."

Since fluoride is in many sources beyond your limited list, fluoride intake cannot be practically measured. Ever.

No. The CDC, WHO, ADA, and other public health organizations recognize the benefit of water fluoridation to dental health.

Fluoridation is Not effective in reducing tooth decay. Tooth decay declined more in many non-fluoridated developed countries that in the US. - World Health Organization Data (2004) - Tooth Decay Trends (12 year olds) in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries

An Overwhelming Number of Scientific Studies Conclude That Cavity Levels are Falling Worldwide … Even In Countries Which Don’t Fluoridate Water

Further evidence of the ineffectiveness of water fluoridation is that the scientific literature shows that – when fluoridation of water supplies is stopped – cavities do not increase (but may in some cases actually decrease). See this, this, this, this, this and this.

[deleted]

Definition of a mineral?

Definition of medication. Fluoride attacks yet again.

Medication isn't dietary. It is used to treat something.

Like tooth decay, isn't it? That makes it a medication.

I've already stated that they don't regulate vitamins and minerals

But they regulate medication.

That's why water fluoridation is set at LOW levels.

Still does not prevent over exposure since you cannot control intake practically.

And you can't practically measure any vitamin or mineral intake.

Yes, you can. People that do that are called "nutritionists".

Fluoride is a mineral.

Used to treat dental health, therefore medication.

I have already refuted each of your "this" sources.

Your "confounding variable" claims only prove that as people get older, their dental habits improve, which is also nothing but conjecture, there is no evidence to prove this, and since children are warned specifically to avoid it, it makes those that would need it, if it were proved to be the case, an extremely small group, not worth polluting whole water sources just to satisfy a tiny group that would have any benefit if there was such a thing.

[deleted]

It is a supplement.

That has never been studied, or approved, the safety of fluoride supplements and continues to classify all fluoride supplements as "unapproved new drugs."

Fluoride doesn't treat anything.

According to this claim, if you don't have cavities, which is not caused by lack of fluoride, fluoride will do nothing to benefit you.

Water fluoridation is regulated at optimum levels to prevent tooth decay.

There is no concrete evidence supporting decrease in tooth decay and fluoride use in water. Speculation or placebo effect at best, not scientific evidence.

You can control intake of water.

Fluoride is in more things that just water. You cannot measure fluoride quantities in all sources available to practically control intake.

Like I said, it is not practical to measure vitamin or mineral intake. A large majority of people do NOT do this. Why? Because it is very impractical.

Impractical does not mean impossible, as is the case with fluoride.

You copy/pasted the same thing that I have already responded to

Because you failed to adequately refute this argument, so restating will perhaps remind you that you don't have a rebuttal.

[deleted]

Your claims:

Fluoride doesn't treat anything.

Lack of fluoride doesn't cause cavities.

So, if I don't have cavities, lack of fluoride won't cause it, and if I do, fluoride doesn't treat it.

Remind me again about the benefits? You fail to mention one. "You have been inconsistent this entire discussion." LOL

[deleted]

IT PREVENTS CAVITIES

How, if according to you, lack of fluoride is not attributed to cavities?

[deleted]

It is not the CAUSE

Yes, thank you. You finally agree that if I don't drink fluoride I won't have cavities either way. Good to see you come around. The cause is something else then. AND! Fluoride doesn't treat anything, rendering this whole toxic completely unnecessary since not ingesting won't bring about cavities and won't treat them if they do.

[deleted]

According to WHO, cases of cavities are being reduced regardless of fluoridated water. Did you miss that part?

[deleted]

Yes, prevalence of decay is reducing.

Regardless of fluoride, making it obsolete and useless, as well and confirming it's inefficacy.

Surgeon Generals receice pay from whom again? Oh yeah, the same government that says a toxic chemical is good for you.

Science magazine noted in 1982:

The decline in caries prevalence in communities without fluoridated water in various countries is well documented. The cause or causes are, at this time, a matter of speculation.

The Journal of Public Health Dentistry noted in 1985:

Even the most cursory review of the dental literature since 1978 reveals a wealth of data documenting a secular, or long term, generalized decline in dental caries throughout the Western, industrialized world. Reports indicate that this decline has occurred in both fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas, and in the presence and absence of organized preventive programs.

The prestigious science journal Nature noted in 1986:

[D]uring the period 1979-81, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas. The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time

The Journal of the American Dental Association noted in 1988:

The current reported decline in caries tooth decay in the US and other Western industrialized countries has been observed in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same

The Boston Globe reported in 1989:

The debate over fluoridating public water supplies, a measure long credited with producing a dramatic drop in tooth decay in the United States, is being rekindled by new studies suggesting the decline may have more to do with other causes, including other sources of fluoride.

The most exhaustive study ever conducted on the dental health of American children, conducted in 1986-87, has confirmed the great decline in cavities in the last 10 years, but it found much less difference than expected between areas with and without fluoridated water.

The Journal of Public Health Dentistry noted in 1991:

During the past 40 years dental caries has been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world... The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride-deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentrifices, have made a major contribution.

The Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine noted in 2002:

It is remarkable, however, that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world (for reviews, see Glass, 1982; Fejerskov and Baelum, 1998) has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation (Bratthall et al., 1996), but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products (Marthaler, 1990; Scheie, 1992). This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.

The International Society of Fluoride Research noted in 2005:

Graphs of tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in 24 countries, prepared using the most recent World Health Organization data, show that the decline in dental decay in recent decades has been comparable in 16 nonfluoridated countries and 8 fluoridated countries which met the inclusion criteria of having (i) a mean annual per capita income in the year 2000 of US$10,000 or more, (ii) a population in the year 2000 of greater than 3 million, and (iii) suitable WHO caries data available. The WHO data do not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades.

The British Medical Journal noted in a 2007 paper:

Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.

Clinical Oral Investigations noted in 2007:

In most European countries, where community water fluoridation has never been adopted, a substantial decline in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades, with reductions in lifetime caries experience exceeding 75%.

And the Globe and Mail wrote in 2010:

There has also been a worldwide reduction in cavity rates, regardless of whether countries use the chemical, suggesting factors other than adding it to water supplies are at work.

[deleted]

The Journal of the American Dental Association, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine, International Society of Fluoride Research, British Medical Journal, Clinical Oral Investigations are not useless since you still fail to refute their studies, or acknowledge due to your own prejudice and personal bias against facts.

[deleted]

Not exactly.

Water in the US that is not naturally fluoridated is fluoridated with industrial waste--it is not meant to be consumed by human beings.

So they can accurately predict the dosage levels by hoping each person will drink their hoped amount of water regularly?

[deleted]

This is the human body we're talking about. Some days one drinks more than other days. Medication should not be taken at variable amounts.

Also, being human, we do not always drink proportionate amounts to our body weights.

May as well add baby aspirin or even arsenic (which happens to be naturally occurring) to the tap water. We'll just rely on the public to drink exactly how much we think they will.

That's just madness.

[deleted]

Now we're comparing minerals to corrosive acids? Geez!

[deleted]

Talk to me when city municipalities choose to add these to the water, air, or anything vital to sustaining life; i.e. not Coca-Cola or canned fruits.

You may choose to live you life in such a way that you have no concern for what you put into your body, but there are some of us that operate differently.

Also, I have yet to see any study that these additives cause brain and DNA damage as fluoride does, but thanks for the tip. I'll look into it just in case.

[deleted]

Hey, I found one for you. Link below.

This is saying that the areas that they considered "high" fluoridation (~3.15 mg/L) which is actually LOWER than the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of 4mg/L,may carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence.

Level of drinking water fluoride (mean ± S.D.) No. of children examined Urinary fluoride level (mean ± S.D.) Mean IQ (mean ± S.D.) High (3.15±0.61 mg/L) 60 4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L* 92.27 ± 20.45† Low (0.37±0.04 mg/L) 58 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L 103.05 ± 13.86

Source: Page 3 of http://www.silver47.eu/Etude%20Chine%20Fluor.pdf

[deleted]

37 Studies for you. I have a feeling you'll find something wrong with each one of them (since you are the ultimate authority), but I wouldn't want to bore your. http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

Looking forward to seeing your work.

Borax is claimed to flush fluoride from the body: Google Search ... and an article discussing in length the benefits of Borax as a supplement.

Interestingly enough, Borax is used as a food additive in many countries, but banned as such in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Food_additive

Even more banned in the EU; you have to buy it from a chemical supply house.

How convenient.

Huh....sketchy.

Ha! Did not know that - I wish I could say I was surprised.

yes, Boron supplements, with Calcium/Magn./Vit D, Lecithin

While it was/is widely used in the chemical industry, I have yet to see any evidence that fluoride was ever used for that purpose by depression/WWII era Germans or Soviets (though I don't deny it's currently being used for that purpose on Americans); it seems to be a rumor among the anti-fluoride community that derived from a previous rumor which spread during the 1970's and 80's; that Germans and Soviets were dosing the water in their concentration camps with potassium chloride for the same purpose. While potassium chloride does not have that property; it is global SOP to supplement canned food diets with potassium chloride to balance the high salt intake; the WWII era US military, for example, issued potassium chloride tablets for this purpose, and to prevent rumors of water tampering; but that could not be done in prisons because of the fear of being poisoned.

If this doesn't convince the sheeple, then nothing will. Very frustrating that we have a plot as well-documented and that They admit to, and nothing happens. For decades!

This came to mind

There are many, highly reasonable reasons to be against fluoridation, but unless you can provide a reliable source for the death camps claim, this does not appear to be one of them.

"Our Holocaust historian knew of no such project. Two book authors who researched the topic, one a journalist, the other a hydrologist, found no credible evidence of such a connection. A leading anti-fluoridation activist repudiates the story. The most commonly cited Web source for the story was a 16-year-old extract in a fringe Australian publication. "

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/

[deleted]

Yeah, I hear you. Totally ridiculous. Check out these ridiculous links I found below. Europe PubMed Central? Environmental Health Perspectives? Really ridiculous.

Really put me at ease. Pass me a glass of that nutritious tap water. I may be developing brain and DNA damage, but at least my teeth are clean and white. Well, until I get fluorosis at least.

Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride.

Objective: ”To explore the DNA damage effects and apoptosis in brain cells of rats induced by sodium fluoride.”

Results: “The DNA damage in pallium neurons in rats of the fluoride group was much more serious compared with those of the control group..”

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12411198/reload=0;jsessionid=ArLcFlEseqrfpP9lIpsh.0

Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children (lowering of IQ)

“The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. “

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Rather than spend an hour of my time explaining why you are an idiot squirming around trying to reconfigure rat to human math, I'll leave you with this article from another dental hygienist (Yes, it has cited sources.)

Give it a read.

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/colquhoun/

[deleted]

Mathematical data? You do realize you're talking about your own Reddit post, right?

The researchers that conducted that study must have had good reason for using the quantities that they did. If you do not like it, then I suggest you conduct your own study and get back to me when you have. Either that, or find studies that involve 4ppm (the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal which is far above your .7mg/litre) I would love to see them. Thus far, the lowest quantities I have been able to find involve 25ppm and a control group. In case you're wondering, there were many negative effect. (Dentine dysplasia, degeneration of ameloblasts, attrition, deformity, and discoloration of teeth ) http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr393.pdf

There is much evidence to suggest that fluoride has had little to no impact against tooth decay and we can actually thank a higher standard of living for that benefit, not fluoride. Many areas without fluoride have actually seen a greater reduction in tooth decay that in fluoridated areas, such as the one listed in this article --> Colquhoun J. New evidence on fluoridation. Social Science and Medicine 19 1239-1246 1984. (Don't crap on the source again as this link is merely a transcription from a medical journal.)

Within stating, " In our view, the evidence indicates that fluoridation entails real health risks and at best very small benefits. Therefore, the fluoridation of water supplies should be terminated forthwith."

It is just amazing to me that there are people like you that exist.

You put down anyone's argument for lack of "credible sources". And, when not one, but TWO very credible studies are put in front of you, you immediately dismiss them because somehow your math is better? Maybe all peer reviews should be sent to reddit user dancerathlete before they can finally be deemed credible?

THAT is ridiculous.

[deleted]

37 Studies for you. I have a feeling you'll find something wrong with each one of them (since you are the ultimate authority), but I wouldn't want to bore your. http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

Looking forward to seeing your work.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride.

Objective: ”To explore the DNA damage effects and apoptosis in brain cells of rats induced by sodium fluoride.” Results: “The DNA damage in pallium neurons in rats of the fluoride group was much more serious compared with those of the control group..”

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12411198/reload=0;jsessionid=ArLcFlEseqrfpP9lIpsh.0

Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children (lowering of IQ)

“The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. “

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

So is oxygen and water.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/FluorideMyths] The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty . . .

^{Respect the rules of reddit: don't vote or comment on linked threads. Questions? Message me here.}

Interestingly enough, Borax is used as a food additive in many countries, but banned as such in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Food_additive

You say that my source claims sodium fluoride is naturally occurring, but then change your claim?

No, you did.

You can view it as "a forced medication upon the public" but fluoride is naturally found in water to begin with. The concentration varies from each area, Africa and Kenya being naturally high concentrations of water.

and then:

Sodium is naturally occurring.

Sodium fluoride? No.

And for what the website is, it has no need to make distinctions.

What? It's a whole different compound. It makes all the difference.

Sodium fluoride is an inorganic chemical compound with the formula NaF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

Calcium fluoride is the inorganic compound with the formula CaF2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

Your source as well as your initial claim that's naturally ocurring is an outright lie due to the fact that what's being introduced is sodium, not calcium fluoride. They are completely different compounds that require a distinction be made. What kind of scientific source is not able to clarify this?

The link doesn't specify the type of fluoride, and I didn't specify.

Intentionally misleading by omission.

Bottom line: You're a liar.

yes, Boron supplements, with Calcium/Magn./Vit D, Lecithin

From this whole discussion, I can conclude two things.

1. You're not a dentist

2. Your a government apologist

You have no credibility at all if you use a government agency to give credibility to mass poisoning of the population by government.

Glad you have your information correct here.

Yay, you're learning. Now, why would the CDC ever produce a study against fluoridation?

Oh yeah, and it's from the CDC, so you don't trust it anyway.

Because proof I have provided shows they are corrupt. Derp.

You think these employees reflect the CDC as a whole?

The DIRECTOR was involved, so I'd say it reflects poorly on the institution, but keep on licking their balls since you think it tastes sooooo good. Derp!

The entire organization.

Conjecture.

And it wasn't corruption of data, it was trying to control exactly where the funding would go.

My example illustrated corrupt behavior. Sorry if it went over your head and confused you. Besides dementia, your naïveness in assuming only 1 agency is capable of corruption is absolutely adorable. Blind faith and naïve, you sound like the 2 year old I described earlier.

Your CDC link is from August 17, 2001, now check this shit out, brosef:

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride November 13, 2010 - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/13/cdc-and-ada-now-advise-to-avoid-using-fluoride.aspx

Woopsie! Hmm, this is not on the 2001 report. Odd isn't it?

Fun fact from that article:

It was 2007 when the American Dental Association (ADA) first warned that parents of infants younger than a year old "should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride"

Since it's the ADA, shouldn't you know about this? You haven't mentioned it once! Amazing, huh.

See the history of this discussion.

I did, and saw nothing resembling proof.

it is clear to ME with my OWN clinical evaluations that adults brush better than adults

Which proves your argument relies on subjectivity and conjecture, not scientific evidence.

If you had any dental background you'd see pretty much the same thing

You don't have any either.

Lack of fluoride doesn't cause cavities.

So you agree it's unnecessary, you're on the path to enlightenment again. Good for you.

The presence of fluoride prevents cavities.

Again, no scientific evidence corroborates this, just speculation.

there are levels set for young children

Which proves it's harmful if overexposed, and since fluoride cannot be measured, makes it a poison.

I'm qualified to actually have an opinion on water fluoridation because I have researched both sides extensively, and I am a registered dental hygienist.

Conjecture. You cannot prove any of these claims.

I have already stated that those I've seen with horrible (decayed) teeth came from families who proclaimed "anti fluoride" for all to hear.

Fairy tales. You cannot use made up stories as any type of scientifically backed evidence. Stop making shit up you can't prove.

You act like fluoride is supposed to be this miraculous cure-all thing.

No, you do.

Cavities should not be taken lightly. It is a disease that can cause MAJOR health problems and even death if not treated.

No one is debating this, this is a red herring and deflection. Stick to the topic.

The issue is that fluoride does nothing in regards to dental health, as stated by various instituions worldwide. Ignoring statements made by those specialists is admission they are right since you have not provided evidence to the contrary.