Makes people complacent and trusting, and easy to control, like most Americans. It's the Rockefeller Foundation who push for it, they know how useful it was for Hitler and Stalin

This is true.^

It is? Citation needed.

Source:

Makes people complacent and trusting, and easy to control, like most Americans. It's the Rockefeller Foundation who push for it, they know how useful it was for Hitler and Stalin
-liverpoolwin

Use google.

Even with making the population sick, this is the more likely answer. It has been shown to decrease IQ in children basically across the board.

Why pay millions for proper disposal of industrial waste when you can store it in slaves. Also it may have an anti depression effect and has been shown to lower IQ according to testing by independent bodies.

It is more likely to cause depression than to have an antidepression effect.

You may be right. I recall jones saying sodium fluoride was the active ingredient in xanax so it may be erroneous or being confused with lithium.

There is no fluoride in xanax. It contains chloride in addition to the normal carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen.

Fluoride is however found in many antidepressants.

Right thanks. Is it the active component?

[deleted]

'Many modern pharmaceuticals (e.g. Prozac, Paxil) contain “organofluorines.” An organofluorine is a chemical compound that contains both carbon and fluorine. The fact, however, that a pharmaceutical is made with an organofluorine does not mean that it will increase your exposure to fluoride. This is because the fluorine in the drug forms a very strong bond with the carbon and this bond resists metabolizing into fluoride ion. It is generally believed, therefore, that most organofluorine drugs do not contribute to daily fluoride exposure.' http://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/pharmaceuticals/

[deleted]

What does PFIB have to do with most organofluorine pharmaceuticals? You're grasping at straws.

What you've written actually supports the quote I provided anyway, because fluoride ions are not compounds, and fluorophosgene is itself an organofluorine, so the bond of fluorine to carbon is still intact.

[deleted]

No, I'm not arguing that, because that would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that the effects of fluoride exposure and fluorinated antidepressants are distinct, and should not be conflated.

it deadens the higher faculties making tedium and evil easier to tolerate, also reinforces idea of disconnected ego as opposed to connected consciousness, among other things

its like putting dark sunglasses over your third eye

90+ % of it goes straight down the drain

And where does that go? Essentially it will contaminate ground water and soil. Some will be removed by water treatment, then added back in. I hadn't even considered it's effects on the plants and animals we consume.

A lot of the potato crop is on irrigated land. The potato plant is one of the few plants, which includes the tea plant, uptakes fluoride. Most rivers where the water is pumped from is contaminated with fluoride from town and city water systems. So if you eat a lot of potatoes and drink a lot of tea or worse, iced tea, you will be intaking much larger doses of fluoride than the average person.

None is removed by water treatment. Zero.

This is fucking stupid. Fluoride occurs naturally in ground water. I have a well. It's a deep well, with water that's seeped through granitic and basaltic rock for centuries. I've had thorough water tests done several times to make sure it's safe for pregnant women, infants, and young children (in connection with becoming a dad), and the fluoride level hovers between 1 and 1.5 mg/l, which is great for my teeth but perhaps a bit high for infants.

There's no way for the government (or any other organization) to be adding fluoride to my water, and yet - there it is! The amount added to the ground water and soil by drinking water fluoridation in municipal water supplies is going to be absolutely minimal compared to naturally occuring fluoride ions.

The WHO has a great resource on the subject which confirms all this.

Yes, fluoride does occur naturally. As does cyanide. I would not recommend either. Some areas in India have such high levels of fluoride in the water that severe fluorosis is endemic. Look it up, it's horrifying.

Did you actually skip over the part where I talked about fluoride concentration or did you just not understand it?

I did read it. Fluoride is not of any benefit at any concentration. It adds nothing to our health, including the alleged benefits to tooth health.

There's overwhelming evidence fluoride has a beneficial effect on teeth. Read this and feel free to follow the references. I think you'll find references 13, 14, and 15 particularly interesting.

There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. None of the references you pointed to involve randomized controlled trials. None. If you can link to one, I'd be more than happy to consider it.

There have been plenty of papers like the one you linked to. They tend to all cite previous references that almost always link back to the root of the problem, which is the bad science prior to 1980 or inadequate studies after that. It's basically an echo chamber of pro-fluoride opinion based on bad, or industry funded, or incomplete, or non-existent science.

You would think that by now, that with all the controversy surrounding the issue, and the well known uncertainty surrounding the existing science on fluoridation of drinking water, that someone within the scientific health community would jump at the chance to fund a proper double-blind randomized controlled trial. How many years have we been adding fluoride to drinking water, and how many years have people brought up well reasoned concerns about it? How many more years before pro-fluoridation health officials put together a proper double-blind randomized controlled trial?

If fluoridation of drinking water were an entirely new idea, in order to get FDA or any other regulatory approval, (especially environmental approval), it would have to be proven to be safe and free of deleterious effects by a factor of 100. So for a proposed 1 ppm dilution, it would have to be proven to be safe at 100 ppm. But we know that problems start at around 3 to 4 ppm. That, by itself is enough to stop its use. Then there is the issue that all the studies used one type of fluoride compound and most of the municipalities use an entirely different fluoride compound that has not been vetted properly for human consumption.

Then there is the issue of a municipal entity medically treating the populace for a medical purpose in a blanket manner without any medical evidence of an actual medical problem in the community, with no ongoing review of the actual amounts of fluoride ingested by the populace or actual amounts of dental issues in the community, before, during and after the addition of fluoride to the water.

When you want or need medical treatment, you present to the doctor, if he determines that you actually have a problem that can be treated with meds, meds are prescribed. And you have the freedom and right to accept or decline the treatment, or pursue alternative and possibly less intrusive treatments.

In water fluoridation treatments, your city decides for you that you will be medicated because studies were done somewhere on the planet that says that you and your community might, maybe, could possibly, need this treatment. And you have no choice in the matter. A city counselor decides that you have a medical problem, and you and your children and everyone else in the community will get the treatment.

The fluoride is put into the water without any consideration of whether or not the community in question actually needs it. If any portion of the population brushes their teeth with fluoridated tooth paste, get regular fluoride treatments, drinks tea or iced tea or eat potatoes or other foods with higher than normal levels of fluoride, then the city blindly adds more fluoride to the water. How does one justify that kind of a policy? It makes no sense.

If a city wants to help with dental caries, they can set up programs to provide funding for people to buy the following:

1) vitamin C, which is KNOWN to help dental health in a most profound way 2) fluoride treatments at the dentist, 3) fluoride containing toothpastes.

Those who want it can take it, those who don't don't.

That is democracy. That is fair. That is safe. That is reasonable. That is not impinging on peoples right to use or refuse medical treatment and not have it imposed on them by a municipal govt.

edit: readability

Climate change denier: Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in air, and plants need carbon dioxide, so dumping industrial carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere is a good idea. Forced-fluoridation harm denier: Fluoride occurs naturally in water, and people need fluoride, so dumping industrial fluoride pollution into public water supplies is a good idea.

Plants do need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, whereas people do not need fluoride, but the climate change denying argument is still irrational.

If you want a detailed answer to the question I suggest you read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, which is a history of forced-fluoridation. Bryson found that there are two reasons, one of which is the disposal of toxic industrial waste, while the other is to protect industry from being sued by their fluoride-poisoned workers. Fluoride is used in a wide variety of metal smelting and other industries, and is a major industrial pollutant. A couple of other potential reasons are evident: the extra money dentists make from cosmetically treating dental fluorosis, and possibly also from misaligned teeth and extra tooth loss, and the extra money the medical industry makes from a chronically poisoned population. And yes, dumping fluoride into public water supplies to prevent tooth decay is ridiculous. Congratulations, you have some common sense, which is more than can be said for many.

There has to be another reason that is being claimed though. Nobody is stupid enough to actually believe that adding a small amount in the water helps with dental hygiene...right? I mean they must be making some other BS claims about the usefulness of flouride, otherwise no smart person would believe it....or are people actually THAT dumb?

Yes, people are actually that dumb.

Aside from the myriad studies done on the subject that show a marked improvement of dental health between populations drinking fluoridated and non-fluoridated water, and the existence of several well-understood mechanisms by which fluoride reduces tooth demineralization and promotes fluorapatite remineralization of tooth enamel?

I guess there's really no reason a smart person would believe claims that fluoridated water is a public health success story, when the evidence is so flimsy and unsubstantial...right?

I guess that warning on my girlfriend's fluoridated toothpaste is wrong then. You know, the one that says: IF CONSUMED, CALL A POISON CONTROL CENTER IMMEDIATELY.

Dosage is highly relevant.

epa limits:

Drinking watter =/< 4ppm

Over the counter toothpaste between 1,000-1,500 ppm

Did you actually skip over the part where I talked about fluoride concentration or did you just not understand it?

Edit: sorry, I thought you were replying to this other comment

Those studies were funded by the same companies that profited from the use of fluoride.

The "myriad studies" are irrelevant because they are all of very poor quality. You don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, which is ironic considering that you don't even have correlation on your side. The "several well-understood mechanisms" is just handwaving.

There is no credible evidence that fluoridated water has ever prevented a single dental cavity. The forced-fluoridation fanatics often try to claim that the low rates of dental caries in western European countries which do not have artificial water fluoridation are due to naturally occurring fluoride in water, or some other kind of artificial fluoridation such as salt fluoridation. They are lying. http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/scotland-and-the-netherlands-inconvenient-examples/

The whole idea of using public water supplies to deliver medication is ridiculous anyway, for reasons which are obvious.

Ok leta just arbitrarily take the top study in that list. Here's the link to the resource: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/fluoridation.html

Can you tell me what makes that study weak? What systematic or methodological errors were made? Was it due to incompetence or are they in on the conspiracy to enslave mankind?

And about the chemistry... what? Are you saying fluoride does not form fluorapatite? Or that fluorapatite isn't a strong component of enamel? Or what? What's "handwaving" about physical chemistry and materials science?

Which study? I'm talking about original studies, not reviews. If you can't figure out what is wrong with the studies which are supposed to prove that forced-fluoridation is effective at reducing dental caries you are completely clueless. Some of the things you should be looking out for are blinding, randomisation, measurement of individual fluoride intake, and consideration of potential confounding factors.

If you knew anything about materials science you would know that extra strength in a material is not necessarily a good thing, because it can come at the cost of extra brittleness, for example. You would also know that the reactivity of a material with acid is a chemical property, whereas strength is a physical property, and the two are independent. There is no credible evidence that forced-fluoridation reduces caries at all, so talking about the mechanism is just make-believe.

Which study? I'm talking about original studies, not reviews.

FYI, review studies are among the most powerful tools available. A good review will double-check the data, the methodology, and the analytical portions of a large set of heterogeneous studies, and thereby discover systematic errors in data collection, methodology, and analysis. On top of that, they provide a way to make a meta-analysis over all the data and draw even stronger conclusions than any analysis of a single study.

Some of the things you should be looking out for are blinding, randomisation, measurement of individual fluoride intake, and consideration of potential confounding factors.

You don't know how science even works. "Blinding" is a meaningless concept in cross-sectional studies. So is "randomization", which is useful in controlled studies, not observational studies. We're talking about the effect of water fluoridation on populations, not individuals, so individual fluoride intake is irrelevant. And "potential confounding factors" have been accounted for, I don't know why you think they haven't been.

extra strength in a material is not necessarily a good thing

It's true I used the word "strong" when mentioning fluorapatite in enamel. I meant that in a general sense, not in the sense of "tensile strength". In fact, fluorapatite has pretty crap tensile strength, which is a good thing. It's supposed to be hard, not strong. Enamel hardness is extremely important, since most tooth damage is caused by abrasion. A tooth is also more prone to chipping if the enamel is demineralized, because the crystalline structure is weakened. Tooth breakage (when it breaks completely off) isn't due to enamel, but dentin, which is less hard but more resilient to tensile and compressive forces. These two components (dentin and enamel) work together to provide a tooth with a very hard surface (against abrasivion) and a very strong structure (against breakage).

no credible evidence

That's a naïve thing to say. If the evidence were not credible at all, then people (dentists, medical students, doctors, review boards, conspiracy nuts) who read the studies would point out the flaws and demand additional studies to settle the matter. I think it's fair to say that most people who read the studies have the opinion the studies are quite credible, and that the matter is in fact settled in favor of fluoridation. You'll have a hard time convincing anybody if you don't give any credence to the science as presented in mainstream publications.

Anyway, you're obviously not going to listen to any of this, so I don't know why I even bother.

You are so stupid it's embarrassing. Unlike you, I have read systematic reviews on this subject and have the University science education to understand them. If you read the recent Cochrane review, you will discover what I have known for years, which is that all of the studies which fluoridationists rely on are of poor quality.

The fact that cross-sectional, observational studies are being relied on is a large part of the problem, you stupid arsehole. Fluoride in water is colourless, odourless, and without taste, so there is no reason why double-blind randomised controlled trials of fluoridated water could not be done. Just going ahead and dumping a medication into public water supplies and then retrospectively conducting poor quality studies to justify it is the epitome of thuggery and stupidity. You are putting the cart before the horse. And I know that relevant, potential confounding factors have not been accounted for because unlike you, I have actually read the relevant studies and systematic reviews. Of course you still haven't actually cited a single good quality original research study. Gee, I wonder why.

I didn't say anything about tensile strength, so you are playing make-believe again. If you knew anything about materials science, you would know that tensile strength is just one kind of strength. What the hell is "abrasivion"? I think you meant "abrasiveness", dear.

People have pointed out the many flaws in the studies, dimwit, going back decades. If you had bothered to properly research the subject, you would know that. What is fair to say is that you have no idea of what you're talking about, and are filling in the gaps with uneducated guesses.

You are so stupid it's embarrassing.

Mmm, yes, I get that a lot. But only from conspiracy nuts and flat-earthers!

Unlike you, I have read systematic reviews on this subject and have the University science education to understand them.

Did you hack my IP address with Visual Basic to delete my university transcripts? Are we having an educational dick-waving contest?

If you read the recent Cochrane review

You mean this one that concludes:

Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth. These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

Of course, there's this bit:

We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in the vast majority (97%) of the studies.

But those concerns were clearly not significant enough to cause the authors to make a more conservative conclusion than "water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children", which is exactly the claim being made by those who advocate water fluoridation.

The fact that it may not be as helpful now, in societies with a high prevalence of fluoride toothpaste and access to professional dentistry services, is irrelevant to the discussion. The lack of supporting evidence for improving adult dental health is equally irrelevant.

The fact is that if you review the existing literature, there is clear evidence that water fluoridation improves the health of teeth, especially in children. Individual studies do have flaws, some more grievous than others, and that's exactly why survey studies (like Cochrane) are so useful.

there is no reason why double-blind randomised controlled trials of fluoridated water could not be done

We're talking about putting fluoride in the tap water for a random subset of the population. How are you going to do that in practice, and not have geographical (and therefore, demographic) clustering?

Just going ahead and dumping a medication into public water supplies and then retrospectively conducting poor quality studies to justify it is the epitome of thuggery and stupidity

No it isn't. There's fluoride at various levels in public water supplies already. Scientists noticed a regional difference in dental health that couldn't be explained by diet or other factors. A safe fluoride level was determined (i.e. let's look where people get fluorosis a lot and where they don't). Then, in order to get everybody the same degree of dental health that naturally fluoridated water provides, it was decided to add fluoride to public water supplies that lacked it. What part of that is thuggish? What part of that is stupid?

tensile strength, "abrasivion"

Pfft, I was using tensile strength as an example of a rigorously defined term that includes the word "strength", not pretending that there's no such thing as compressive strength or any other form of strength. Picky picky! Thanks for pointing out my typo - I was on mobile.

People have pointed out the many flaws in the studies, dimwit, going back decades.

Well, there's this Harvard study that people (including asshats like Mercola) generally refer to as evidence supporting the idea that artificial water fluoridation lowers IQ and makes people complacent.

I quote:

Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious ones, that limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

I think it's fair to say that both sides have a similar level of quality in the individual studies. I also want to point out that the review of (mainly Chinese) fluoride health studies shows that high fluoride levels are correlated with lowered IQ, but that in this case "high levels" is on the order of 10 mg/l, which is ten times higher than the level recommended by the WHO.

What is fair to say is that you have no idea of what you're talking about, and are filling in the gaps with uneducated guesses.

I love that you know me so well! Are we soul mates?

I know what the Cochrane review says because unlike you, I have read the whole thing. They modified their original conclusion and it is now dishonest and does not match the data. If you actually read the whole review you would find that all of the studies on dental caries were of low quality. The 3% of studies you're referring to were all on dental fluorosis. The more you write the more you back up my point, which is that you can't cite a single good quality original research study to support your little fantasy. I'm not going to waste any more time here. I've proved my point. You are also lying about the review of studies on reduced IQ, which I have also read.

You're absolutely right. The NHS report I linked to you earlier definitely doesn't qualify as "quality research". It is, after all, funded by the NHS which is obviously part of the disinfo conspiracy aimed at promoting artificial water fluoridation for some sinister objective.

I've read yesterday somewhere that it was one of the steps to lower the immune system.

it makes people servile and compliant is the main reason

if you want to turn humans into drones, flouride gives huge bang for the buck, considering if you couldnt sell chumps on it as tooth protection you should drink in massive quantities, it would be expensive to dispose of

and at this point when science has shown it to lower iq and cause flourosis, they dont want to get sued by people like be because it def ruined my teeth

go on reverse osmosis filtered water for 30 days, tell me how you feel after or dont ask again, its easy to test

i think it was done to make people 'passive' & at the same time damaging health (population control).

31 reasons - of 50 why fluoride is not good.

1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.

2) Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.

3) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water

4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability.

5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water.

6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride deficiency.”(NRC 1993; Institute of Medicine 1997, NRC 2006). Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes.

7) The level in mothers’ milk is very low. Considering reason #6 it is perhaps not surprising that the level of fluoride in mother’s milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006).

8 ) Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971).

9) No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects.

10) There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety.

Swallowing fluoride provides no (or very little) benefit

11) Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth.

12) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries.

13) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt.

14) NIH-funded study on individual fluoride ingestion and tooth decay found no significant correlation.

15) Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years.

16) Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped.

17) Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. Modern research shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced in Australia and New Zealand and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized.

18) The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942 (Ziegelbecker 1981).

19) Children are being over-exposed to fluoride.

20) The highest doses of fluoride are going to bottle-fed babies.

21) Dental fluorosis may be an indicator of wider systemic damage. There have been many suggestions as to the possible biochemical mechanisms underlying the development of dental fluorosis (Matsuo 1998; Den Besten 1999; Sharma 2008; Duan 2011; Tye 2011) and they are complicated for a lay reader.

22) Fluoride may damage the brain. According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” In a review of the literature commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fluoride has been listed among about 100 chemicals for which there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

23) Fluoride may lower IQ. There have now been 33 studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ.

24) Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects.

25) Fluoride affects the pineal gland. Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) show that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. I

26) Fluoride affects thyroid function. According to the U.S. National Research Council (2006), “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.”

27) Fluoride causes arthritic symptoms. Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis (a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa), mimic the symptoms of arthritis

28) Fluoride damages bone.

29) Fluoride may increase hip fractures in the elderly.When high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a higher number of fractures, particularly hip fractures

30) People with impaired kidney function are particularly vulnerable to bone damage.

31) Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma).

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

Dr. Blaylock gives a good account of what excessive fluoride consumption does to the body.

It's a monstrous commie plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

That tear he goes on is legendary. He even got into semen retention in that scene! I appreciate the reference even if nobody else seems to.

I... I do deny them my essence.

POE . . . Purity of essence . . . Peace on Earth . . .

Peace is our profession!

TOTAL. COMMITMENT.

I'm pretty sure the people who are pushing this agenda are capitalists, not communists.

Fluoride has two main contributing factors to prevent tooth decay. Present ast a mineral, fluoride helps the formation of tooth enamel, the hard outer shell of the tooth that protects against cavities. Additionally, fluoride disrupts the metabolism of bacteria that cause cavities, killing them.

These benefits are well proven as actually effective by many many studies. Most which compare similar cities near each other with similar demographics, where one city fluoridates and one does not. This has been repeated so many times that obvious questions about control seem irrelevant. The amount added to the water supply is very small and this constitutes a very cost effective way to have a large reach of benefit to the population.

This works really well in 3rd world or less developed counties, but recent studies are finding that it is no longer effective in developed countries, that it was previously proven very effective. The speculated cause seems obvious, greater access to alternative sources of fluoride through dental procedures, toothpaste, and mouthwashes.

Most of the the studies were funded by the industry that benefited from selling the fluoride to the cities that added it to their water systems. The few more recent independent studies show no benefit.

I disagree about the funding of studies. Many studies were done by cities and government entities to prove the safety and effectiveness of the strategy. These statistics basically tracked cavity/filling/extraction rates of different age groups in cities with/without fluoridated water. Many of these studies started decades ago.

There are plenty of issues to criticize studies though, such as statistics showing that tooth health got better in areas without fluoridated water over the decades. One could speculate that better access to dental care over the decades contributed to that. Some studies suggest that fluoridation bridged the dental health gap between the wealthy and poor. Many times these studies are questioned for being of neighboring cities where people may travel between the two. Also, some studies are criticized for possibly having a poor vrs more wealthy city in comparison. Personally, I feel there are enough diverse studies to dilute such issues against the results. Also, the many meta analyses help to average out problems in my eyes.

A recent review of the science found that anything before 1980, which is what was used to justify most of the initial beginning of the use of fluoride in drinking water, was all industry influenced and was compromised.

You don't appear to understand the difference between random error and systematic error. Look it up.

this makes so sense at all. there is much more fluoride in a single dose of toothpaste needed to clean and maintain your dental health, and if you don't brush your teeth daily, no matter how much fluoridated water you drink your teeth will decay. you are not supposed to ingest fluoride to maintain healthy teeth. that is why you spit it out and rinse your mouth when brushing your teeth. it's poisonous and not beneficial to ingest in any amount. in third world countries, where they recently started this process, the areas with higher amounts of water fluoridation have lower iqs in children and increase cases of fluorosis.

While I tend to mostly agree, many places have or have had financial barriers preventing access to toothpaste and learning healthy oral hygiene habits like brushing. I do trust the studies that have shown much benefit to those children in the past decades (as it is most effective for children developing strong early enamel). I do agree that ingesting fluoride seems risky, but I realize fluoridating the water supply both provably worked and was very cheap and far reaching. The ingested amounts are very tiny and seem safe, although I am suspicious of their long term or possibly cumulative effects, not to mention the results of compounding that with accidental consumption of fluoride from others sources like brushing and mouthwash. While I suspect the IQ loss issue in my cumulative and long term concerns, all the studies about it that I've seen refer to areas where natural fluoride in the water or fluoride contamination of the water through pollution, have made the fluoride levels extremely excessive of standard water fluoridation levels.

it's totally against medical practice to give someone medication/treatment without consent. this is the only case where the u.s. government decides to medicate it's citizens free of charge, whether they agree or not. the u.s. government doesn't care about your health at all. that is not what they are there for. that's why we have doctors that go over the effects and can explain to the patient what the treatment will be so he/she can consent to it. if these industries didn't sell the fluoride to water plants they would have to dump it, because it is poisonous waste.

This is a historic treatment originates in the discovery of fluoride's role in teeth and bones by researching dentists and early tests by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, completely unconnected with factories needing to dispose of waste. The history doesn't support the concept that fluoridation was brought on by industries. Your concerns of medical practices seem out of place when you realize many minerals are added to the water supply, especially if it is filtered. Back when this started becoming common practice in the 1950's, medical ethics weren't really a big thing. Doctors where just leaving the terrible times of lobotomies, electroshock therapy, and horrible testing on the mentally ill.

yes, applying fluoride to your teeth is beneficial, i'm not denying that. brush your teeth everyday. ingesting small amounts of fluoride frequently on a daily basis is not beneficial to your bones. there is no point in adding fluoride to the water because you have to brush daily with fluoridated toothpaste anyways to successfully prevent tooth decay. ingesting too much gives you skeletal fluorosis. the fluoride that is added in the water supply is in fact from industrial waste and is not just another mineral they add to the public water supply. when you ingest fluoride there is nearly no positive effects. the positive effects come from brush your teeth and spitting it out.

[removed]

If comments like this are the extent of your contribution here, maybe you'd be better off elsewhere. Please read the rules on the sidebar and consider this your warning.

Right thanks. Is it the active component?