Authored by: Spine on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 11:00

By all means, vote no--if you want the City of Burlington to sap and
impurify your precious bodily fluids.

But seriously: yeah, the arguments against fluoridation, to the extent
they exist, are pretty flimsy. Here in Portland, our drinking water is
unfluoridated (and delicious, I might add). My dentist told me it's quite
common for newcomers to Portland who have never had cavities before
to develop them within their first few years here.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 11:03

So I try not to use Candleblog as a political tool

Too bad we don't extend the same courtesy to NTodd.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: e_to_the_m on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 03:02

I have to disagree here. Take into account that fluoride has been shown to help in the prevention of cavities topically but has also been shown to be detrimental to one's health if ingested over time. It is practically impossible to buy toothpaste without fluoride unless you really look and many of the processed foods we eat (and drinks we consume) are made with fluoridated water. I'm not debating the benefits of topical fluoride treatments but I am wholly against medicating the water supply. Medication should be a choice left up to families. In my house we have a long standing tradition of buying bottled water specifically because I don't want my daughter (or myself) to consume fluoride on a regular basis.
I appreciate that you had a nice long talk with the State Dental director but how about talking to people on both sides of the issue? If you are going to politicize Candleblog at least present a complete picture.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 06:31

Here Here! The "choice" issue is the only issue. I have a bottle of "Act" on my bathroom sink - it's a flouride rinse. The fact that it warns "do not swallow" is beside the point. The fact that it's available in stores in that form, and in toothpaste form, allows me to flouridate at will.

I won't take up more space w/ this here, but choice is what it's all about in a free country. And don't get me started about helmet and/or seatbelt laws. I wear a seatbelt, but not because it's required by the law.... ahh, I don't feel like wasting my time on this stupid issue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nyscof on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 07:21

Fluoride chemicals added to water supplies are silicofluorides - impure waste products of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing. Unlike fluoride sold in toothpaste, mouthwashes, etc, silicofluorides contain trace amounts of toxins such as lead and aresenic.

Studies show that children who live in silicofluoridated communities have higher blood lead levels. Higher blood lead levels are linked to higher rates of tooth decay.

This is probably why most large U.S. fluoridated cities are experiencing tooth decay crises.

No American is fluoride deficient. In fact, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, up to 50% of U.S. school children show toxic manifestations of fluoride or fluoride overdoseasge symptoms - dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted enamel.

After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching about 2/3 of americans on public water supplies and virtually 100% via the food supply and after 50 years of fluoridated toothpaste taking up 95% of the market and all those new fluoridated dental products, tooth decay is a growing U.S. epidemic.

Besides fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth or body. There's no reason to put fluorde into water supplies except to medicate entire populations without informed consent. Fluoridation is just an old-fashioned concept based on scientifically disproven beliefs.

For more info
www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
www.FluorideAction.Net

News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Haik Bedrosian on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 09:29

I agree with e_to_the_m. I don't care it it makes me live forever, it should still be a choice. People say low-income children will suffer, but if a family can't afford toothpaste then they have bigger fish to fry. Flouride in the water isn't going to feed and house them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 11:24

e_to_the_em, all I've heard so far (until the other night) in this community has been from the anti-fluoride folks, so I don't see it as a disservice to ignore their message (any more than I see ignoring the IDers' claims) here on my little blog. The anti-fluoride campaign doesn't really need my help.

Fuoridating water is not "medicating" the water supply any more than iodizing salt is medicating our salt supplies. I won't even mention the shit that goes into most most foods--even raw produce--that we get at the grocery store.

DanZ, I admit the choice issue is compelling, but read my comment above. How much of a choice do we have about all of those food additives? We can choose to eat only foods made from pesticide-free, organic ingredients, but it's hard--harder than buying bottled non-fluoridated water.

Also, one of my big complaints about seatbelt and helmet laws is that they don't seem to actually do much for public safety. The only reasonable argument in favor of limiting individual choice is to protect the public at large (you don't have a "choice" to ignore stop signs, for example). In the case of seatbelt and helmet laws, the lawmakers have not proven their case and the laws seem like little more than parental admonishments. With fluoridated water however (despite nyscof's wacky claims about more tooth decay in fluoridated areas), the data is very clear. There's 60 years of evidence regarding the public health benefits of fluoridated public water.

I know we're talking about tooth decay here and not lung cancer and that makes this whole thing seem a little silly to me, but really. The anti-fluoride organizations are using bad science and fear tactics in an attempt to do something that will negatively impact public health and its pissing me off.

Analogy time: Imagine the debate was over the additive they put in natural gas that makes it smell bad. The reason they put that smell in there is so you'll know if there's a gas leak. Natural gas has no odor at all without the stinky additive. Suppose some conspiratorially minded folks got together and started telling people that the smelly additive causes cancer (some anti-fluoride people make that ridiculous and completely unproven claim about fluoride) and they got enough people to sign a piece of paper so there was a ballot question about it. Suddenly there is a debate over the safety of the stink. That doesn't mean there's any actual scientific question about its safety, just a public debate started by paranoid people. Now imagine that they foment enough fear in the community and rally people around the question of "choice" to actually get the smelly substance removed from the gas (or they allow you to check a box on your gas bill if you want the smell or not). The result is a freer society where a lot more people die of gas poisoning.

Vote "no."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: thedrivein on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 12:00

Bill - i am with you. I grew up mainly in Canada, and what i didnt know
at the time was all the CDN provinces EXCEPT Quebec had floride since
the 60's or so. Today, visit Quebec, see the teeth of the natives,the
contrast to Ontario is dramatic and the evidence seems clear, or rotted
as that may be.
At the last mayors debate I did learn something beyond the bomb
throwing " If in doubt, vote it out" there does seem to be something in
the formula we now use that may be able to altered to correct what
Loyal mistakenly calls 'toxic waste'.
Anyways can we get back to talking about Amanda?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Lia on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 05:03

If you don't want fluoride, don't swallow! (heh, heh) You have the option of choosing bottled water, but it is obvious that for the majority of the population that fluoride is a good thing. I like having teeth, so I like fluoride!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Rob on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 05:24

Bill is a government controlled fluoride drone. Never drink city water! When in doubt... read more or don't vote.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 09:39

You drones are all alike. (heh, heh)

But seriously, the reason for traffic laws is so we don't hurt each other with cars, not so we don't hurt ourselves. Consumer protection laws are so we don't hurt each other through commerce. It's all about not hurting other people - even with their consent! Protecting me from myself is nearly impossible, as is protecting me from the natural world. Why aren't there SPF45 laws on the books? What about aqualung requirements if you live near water? What about helmet laws for bathing? What about anti-micro-meteorite shielding? (okay, that was silly). It's one thing to recommend that people not be exposed to UV, but another to forbid them from being outside w/out certified shielding. Seriously, how do you justify protecting people from nature or their own genetic predispositions? To paraphrase another writer posting on this thread (HBedrosian I think): if you can't afford toothpaste, you have other high-risk factors of your life to worry about.

Medication w/out consent is always unjustified, and the ends don't justify the means. Furthermore, bad rhetoric on the part of the anti-flouride crowd doesn't justify the additional dent in our civil liberty armor either. Imagine, if you will, your reaction to hearing of a new law being considered in the City of Burlington that requires that a petroleum distillate be added to the drinking water to prevent absorption of fat from food, thereby lowering the average body weight of the inhabitants, also the blood pressure and long-term medical costs due to fat consumption. The justification works only on the average, and leaves out of the equation the negative effects of

* any other metabolic side effects (like for those with unusually low body fat anyway)
* choice
* imposition of an arbitrary measure of the 'quality of life' that is not universally accepted.
* side effects due to accidental contaminants or effects not yet understood by the health industry
* falsely computing the "cost" of a limitation of the human body and attempting to minimize it.

That last point is a tough one for most people. But consider the "cost" of having a predator's field of view when our food is cheap and in good supply. Wouldn't humans suffer less injury if they had the nearly full field of view that, say, a rabbit has? We can estimate the "cost" of not having an extensive peripheral field and show that by requiring special eyewear we can minimize that cost. Fuck Flouride and Fuck the City of Burlington.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: arthur on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 10:22

Sock it to me Zucker! You're the only person whose written a
comment so far that I can say I agree with completely...That perfect
combination of scientific skepticism AND anti-authoritarianism...

Also...Bill, while I generally side with you and yours...I do take issue
with the statement that it's "hard" to eat only natural/organic food
and drink non-fluoridated water...Nina and I have found it very easy
and inexpensive to live / eat / drink this way...and we are often
saddened by the perpetuated stereotype that it is somehow harder
than following the norm. It isn't. You just have to have your
priorities straight...

That's it for my soapboxing...

Bill...I've watched the video several times now, and it is SO fucking
great. MuchMusic here we come!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 10:42

DanZ, I think your argument by analogy is weak (though much stronger than 99% of the anti-fluoride rhetoric I've heard) when the situation is applied to the fluoridation issue. Addressing your laundry list:

* any other metabolic side effects (like for those with unusually low body fat anyway)

How does this analogy hold with fluoride? Fluoride is in water bodies naturally at an amout that's about 1/10 that of city water. Someone who uses fluoride toothpaste and gets fluoride treatments at the dentist and drinks fluoridated water and for good measure eats fluoride sandwiches might get slight fluorosis (white spots on the teeth), but no other "metabolic side effects" have been observed after 60 years of fluoridation.

* choice

You have choice. Don't drink city water. See my point above about additives in just about every food there is.

* imposition of an arbitrary measure of the 'quality of life' that is not universally accepted.

I'm really not worried about people who crave tooth decay. Fluoridated water is not a significant impediment to someone who's determined to rot their teeth. People who do not agree that less tooth decay is a good thing have plenty of options available to them.

* side effects due to accidental contaminants or effects not yet understood by the health industry

The baseline for our understanding of the effects of water fluoridation is pretty damned good--at least as good as it is for the vitamin D they fortify milk with. Accidental contaminants is a potential in any processed system for manufacturing consumables. If the fear of accidental contaminants keeps us from fluoridating water, we better not process the water at all--or send it through pipes. Best to just drink it from the lake.

* falsely computing the "cost" of a limitation of the human body and attempting to minimize it.

Well shit, why are we purifying the water at all then? My false computation of the cost of giardia is just crazy. Why minimize it?

Basically, my peeve about this amounts to: don't fuck with my water supply based on your delusions about imaginary health risks. I wouldn't want crackpots to alter any of the many other treatments that keep my water safe either based on bad science and fear mongering.

The point about low income families isn't about not being able to afford toothpaste. Fluoride toothpaste is a given. The water improves the health of teeth over and above fluoride toothpaste. It's families that can't afford dental insurance who will suffer from this bad idea. The rest of us can fix the problems that will arise from non-fluoridated water.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 10:47

Nina and I have found it very easy and inexpensive to live / eat / drink this way...and we are often saddened by the perpetuated stereotype that it is somehow harder than following the norm. It isn't.

I stand corrected. However I guess I could say the hard part is the getting priorities straight in the first place. It's also easier for those of us in cool liberal cities like SF and BTV to eat strictly controlled diets. I've seen my veggie friends try and eat in small towns in flyover states. It's an object lesson in frustration and disappointment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: arthur on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 11:09

That's true Bill...we have been fortunate enough to live in progressive
places...(and now a place that has year-round farmer's markets)...but
there is a growing concern in even middle America for "natural" food,
what with all the Trader Joe's and Whole Foods cropping up...plus
even Safeway has added organic sections to their stores...we did okay
food-wise on our cross-country trek a few years ago...(although we
did have to explain to some grocery store employees what hummus
was in Nebraska)

And it's also true that getting the priorities straight in the first place is
probably the hardest thing...but from my experience and observation
there doesn't seem to be anything really in place in the education
system or the general consciousness of American policy makers
regarding true healthy living...even the food pyramid is determined
partially by lobbyists for various food industries...I guess what I'm
trying to say is that for 18 years or so of MY life, nobody told me that
it SHOULD be a priority of mine to eat healthy...except for some
surface level placating bullshit PSAs. Probably a lot of people are in
the same boat.

Hmmm...musings...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: AlexC on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 01:17

Ironically, the only documented side effect of fluoridated water is a tendency towards paranoia about food additives.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: AlexC on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 01:32

As someone who often forgets to brush, I am happy that my municipalities (BTV and SF) have made it so that my default choice is the healthier one. Arguments by analogy are dangerous, but consider another municipal service, pedestrian traffic signals: I have the option to disobey but when I approach an intersection there's a BIG RED LIGHT telling me the healthy alternative (don't walk).

Bill, what do you know about the science of GM/irradiated foods? Agribiz and IP politics aside, it seems like a similar situation -- is there any evidence GM foods are less safe than, say, chee-tos? I assume not, but which one is banned in the EU?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 02:28

GM/irradiated foods? Agribiz and IP politics aside, it seems like a similar situation

I know very little about irradiated foods except that an awful lot of our foods are irradiated. No idea about health issues (or lack thereof) there.

I know a little more about GM and it sounds like the jury is really still out there. GM food has only been commercially available for about a decade and the testing is all done by the companies that produce the GM foods (not by the FDA!). I don't buy into the alarmist dogma about GM foods, but it would be nice if some actual impartial testing started getting done. The big controversy in the EU seems to be about labeling, which is weird. shouldn't it be about testing? I dunno.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 03:22

can we get back to talking about Amanda?

Dude, did you see today's Rocketboom? WTF?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Haik Bedrosian on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 03:23

Now that I think about it, there's chlorine in the water too. I know that's poison, but I'd rather keep it in there. The thought of taking flouride out of the water gave me a temporary sense I could affect my own destiny. Whoops. I've been drinking it all my life, anyway. Maybe flouridation is why I have good teeth. Who knows? Bill is probably right. I'm feeling pangs of self-doubt, now. Not just about this, about everything. The older I get the less I know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 07:39

Luckily for me, I don't live in Burlington. Then I'd find myself inundated with both flourine, chlorine, bromine, iodine and the whole spectrum of logical fallacies. Vote with your teeth, that's my motto.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Rob on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 08:03

Under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets standards for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water. For each of these contaminants, EPA sets a legal limit, called a maximum contaminant level, or requires a certain treatment. Water suppliers may not provide water that doesn't meet these standards. Water that meets these standards is safe to drink, although people with severely compromised immune systems and children may have special needs. For a more detailed description, read about how standards are set or about EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

"No level of exposure to a chemical carcinogen should be considered toxicologically insignificant to humans."
- Surgeon General, National Cancer Institute.

Never drink city water!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: e_to_the_m on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 09:34

Unlike Haik I am not feeling pangs of self-doubt and I refuse to be bullied into changing my opinion.

e_to_the_em, all I've heard so far (until the other night) in this community has been from the anti-fluoride folks, so I don't see it as a disservice to ignore their message (any more than I see ignoring the IDers' claims) here on my little blog. The anti-fluoride campaign doesn't really need my help.

If you’re really not interested in politicizing this blog then it seems only appropriate to post both sides of the issue and not the side you feel needs your charity. And if you had been to any of the numerous community forums over the past couple of years you would have heard plenty from the pro-flouride side. Additionally, comparing the people against water fluoridation to IDers is just plain slanderous and a little bit of fear mongering on your part, no?

Fuoridating water is not "medicating" the water supply any more than iodizing salt is medicating our salt supplies. I won't even mention the shit that goes into most most foods--even raw produce-- that we get at the grocery store.

Bill, I don’t eat iodized salt when I have a choice, I eat kosher salt. Just because the Johnson’s are putting all sorts of harmful shit into their hot dogs does not make it OK or somehow less bad for the issue at hand. In fact the two don’t even go hand in hand. If they did I could say, well I already smoke cigarettes which is bad for me so why not shoot heroin?

With fluoridated water however (despite nyscof's wacky claims about more tooth decay in fluoridated areas), the data is very clear. There's 60 years of evidence regarding the public health benefits of fluoridated public water.

The wacky claims of a few individuals do not make the entire argument bunk. Much of that 60 years of evidence done by the fluoride people as been disputed as well but far be it from me to think that the government might actually lie to me and choose what is in fact not best for some other motive, that could never happen.

I know we're talking about tooth decay here and not lung cancer and that makes this whole thing seem a little silly to me, but really. The anti-fluoride organizations are using bad science and fear tactics in an attempt to do something that will negatively impact public health and its pissing me off.

But we’re not just talking about tooth decay, we’re talking about individual choice and the right to make choices for our families, we’re talking about informed decisions made with our dental care professionals, we’re talking about full disclosure in regard to some of these reports and studies that have come out over the past 60 years, we’re talking about other potential side effects from fluoride in the water, we’re talking about fluoride alternatives that may be safer like xylitol. Also keep in mind that the problem for the anti- fluoride people is ingestion of fluoride, not topical use.To reduce this issue to one reason is absurd. I wish you’d talk to some of those “fear mongers” over on the other side and see where they’re really coming from.

Analogy time: Imagine the debate was over the additive they put in natural gas that makes it smell bad.

Didn’t you just say that we were talking about tooth decay and not lung cancer, but then you make an analogy where the end result is people dying? Bill, honestly, can we talk about fear mongering a little more?

I’m willing to see that we will just have to agree to disagree here. See you at dinner tonight!

Learn more and then decide for yourself what to vote.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: e_to_the_m on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 09:39

I should also also say that I don't think all of nyscof's claims are wacky.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 10:19

e_to_the_em took on the challenge that I wasn't too interested in fighting about, because, as I mentioned above, I don't live in Burlington and I don't care what y'all drink up there. But since she defended against the Attack of the Drones, I might as well take a few pot shots as well: the reason scurvy, goiter, rickets, and other nutrient deficiencies were treated in the American food supply was because the national industrial machine did a better job at adding nutrients to common staples than attempting to lift the masses out of poverty and other situations that were factors in malnourishment... and it worked. But why is vitamin D still added to milk these days in the US? The only way you see that deficiency here in the US is when parents lather their kids w/ so much sunscreen that they stop making it internally. If you removed it from the milk supply, who would get hurt first? The poor and malnourished probably. Okay, so in order to support a basic problem in malnourishment among the poor (by happenstance), and among the rest of the country (by choice - think 'McDonalds'), we fortify our foods. What about me and arthur and others who take the modest time to avoid junk food and eat healthy, balanced diets of whole-grains, fruits, vegetables, etc.? We have to also take the extra effort to avoid these 'soylent green' nutrition pills.

What about non-nutritional additives, like butylated hydroxy toluene, iodine, chlorine and flourine? Well, if you like your meat pink, you gotta add the nitrates for color. If you like long shelf lives, you gotta add the BHT. So many of these are additives for your convenience - okay, that's great. Chlorine too, is added to drinking water for convenience because there aren't too many ways to get uncontaminated water from a municipal water source. But iodine defiency is rare, as are other nutrient deficiencies. So what about flouride? Well, you all have heard how both the ADA and the CDC support removing it from the water supply (because systemic flouride doesn't do anything, but topical application seems to help), and tooth decay is disappearing at the same rate in Japan, China, Europe and the US (and only the US has widespread flouridation). But doesn't the idea that a lawyer from ALCOA in the '50's came up with an idea for how to dispose of an industrial by-product that contains lead, cadmium, and other contaminants (i.e., put it in the water and call it "flouridation") just make you want to piss in your hat?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 11:01

HOLY CRAP you guys know a lot about drinking water. I'm afraid to go near my fucking faucet now.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: arthur on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 12:10

Fucking stellar work again Mr. Z!
It makes me want to piss in a a lot of people's hats! Among other
places...Like maybe the water supply!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 12:48

Thank you Arthur. And speaking of fucking stellar, how's yer mom?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MarkS on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 12:49

The water here in NYC tastes pretty good and it's the reason the NY pizza tastes so Goo..

GAH!


ACK!

*thud*

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 02:51

But seriously: yeah, the arguments against fluoridation, to the extent they exist, are pretty flimsy.

I should not have said this. It has become clear to me over the course of reading this thread that I'm not very well educated on the matter. And I don't really buy some of the analogies being thrown around here.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: thedrivein on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 03:12

(Re Fridays' show) thats why i tune in - she does doesn't take the world
too serious. She is like my daily does of digital People magazine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: arthur on Saturday, March 04 2006 @ 03:19

Mom's doing great Dan...no thanks to you, and that "fluoride treatment"
you gave her! If there's any doubt, get it out! Of my mom!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nyscof on Sunday, March 05 2006 @ 06:22

You may not believe me. But, you may believe the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC):


According to the CDC:

1) Ingested fluoride discolors teeth (a)

2) Fluoride's benefits are topical only (b)

3) Ingested fluoride that emerges in saliva to bathe teeth topically with fluoride is too low to have any anti-cavity effect (c)

4) Enamel fluoride levels are not inversely related to tooth decay in populations or individuals (d)

5) The "scientific" reference the CDC uses to support fluoridation efficacy is based on a belief (e)

Just like the drug companies who cover their liability with a drug's adverse-health -effects package insert, knowing most Americans fail to read them, the CDC reports contradictory fluoride information knowing most won't notice.

The truth is that after 60 yeas of fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans on public water supplies and virtually 100% via the food supply, tooth decay is a national epidemic and national disgrace because low-income families can't get dental care and live in severe dental distress, whether they drink fluoridated water or not.

Ironically, Vermont has one of the best, tooth decay rates in the country, which has nothing to do with fluoride intake. It is because more Vermont children have better access to dental care than most U.S. low-income children.

Many fluoridated cities are expereincing extreme tooth decay crises because children in poverty can't afford to eat nutritioiusly, low-income people can't get dental care and/or parents feed children inappropriately. Here's just one such newspaper report today about a fluoridation California community:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14019337.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

We've collected many equally disturbing newspaper accounts of high tooth decay rates in fluoridated cities, mainly because 80% dentists refuse to treat Medicaid and/or low-income patients.
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Soda is the leading cause of tooth decay. Ironically, most sodas sold in the U.S. have a substantial fluoride content because they are made with tap water from fluoridated cities.

After the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry accepted a $1 million grant from Coca Cola, instead of condeming soda, they endorsed Coke's new fluoridated bottled water - something few low-income children can afford. However, soda is cheap, fills bellies and satisfies hunger.

Fluoridation is just a plain old waste of money, is ineffective and harmful to your health

References:

Below references found here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

(a) "The very mild and mild forms of enamel fluorosis appear as chalklike, lacy markings across a tooth's enamel surface that are not readily apparent to the affected person or casual observer (53). In the moderate form, >50% of the enamel surface is opaque white. The rare, severe form manifests as pitted and brittle enamel. After eruption, teeth with moderate or severe fluorosis might develop areas of brown stain (54). In the severe form, the compromised enamel might break away, resulting in excessive wear of the teeth."

(b) Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva (37)

(c) “Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity. ”

(d) "The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel (37), and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries (38)."


NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
www.FluorideAction.Net

(e) "widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries in the United States and other economically developed countries (1). "

Reference 1) Bratthall D, Hänsel Petersson G, Sundberg H. Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:416--22.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Doodle on Sunday, March 05 2006 @ 12:09

"Fluoridation is just a plain old waste of money, is ineffective and harmful to your health"

My father in law was an oral surgeon for decades. He said that the difference between kids in fluoridated towns vs. non-fluoridated was night and day. The non-fluoridated kids who didn't practice an extremely conscientious dental hygiene regimen (most of them) were a nightmare, dentally speaking.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Doodle on Sunday, March 05 2006 @ 12:18

BTW, thanks for posting the CDC link, nyscof. Despite your article's out-of-context quotes, the article makes a very strong case for fluoride when read in its entirety.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]