Deleted member 61728
Deleted member 61728
If its not harmful then why do the people say it is or at least conspiracy theorists ?
What is the highest fluoride toothpaste available?
- Thread starter One More Solo
- Start date
Because they are conspiracy theorists. The clue is in the title.
when it means less people having dental issues, yes?
LOL!
Right! Let's put this theory to the test!
I'll make a live net stream and we can all watch groen eat 14 hundred tubes of toothpaste!
Not the point. Our drinking water should be sacrosanct. Regardless of the health advantages.
You want people with less dental issues? provide more accessible dentistry and education in dental care. Do not force the entire populace to ingest a chemical via their drinking water.
There should always be a choice, and if the water which is supplied to my home has been flourinated then that basic freedom has been denied me.
You could drink bottled water, Floride also occurrs naturally in some drinking water even at above safe levels.
Personally I would want to see some new studies on it before making any decisions, on it's effectiveness.
Generally I think it's best to avoid taking anything unless needed. Bur tooth decay is a serious problem with unto 90% of people needing dental care in developed countries.
Personally I would want to see some new studies on it before making any decisions, on it's effectiveness.
Generally I think it's best to avoid taking anything unless needed. Bur tooth decay is a serious problem with unto 90% of people needing dental care in developed countries.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Since when is running water that you pay for a basic freedom?
Go and get your water from a frigging stream if you're so unhappy with being given beneficial chemicals for free.
As far as making sure the water is safe to drink. Flouride adds nothing to the safety of drinking water. Chlorine and Aluminium are used in the purification process to make sure that diseases such as Cholera do not enter the water system, Flouride does not provide that kind of protection and so should not be routinely added to drinking water.
The arguements are not conclusive to the veracity of flouridated water protecting teeth anyway. If in doubt, don't do it.
Why should I. I do indeed pay so I should also have the choice over what I receive, that is a basic freedom. If you want flouride, buy toothpaste or mouthwash.
There is conflicting evidence over whether flouride in drinking water is beneficial to begin with.
So you think that clean drinking water is not a basic right?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
You have a choice to pay for fluoridated running water or to buy bottled water.
If I buy a petrol car from a car manufacturer that only sells petrol cars, I can't demand that they sell me a diesel one, can I? I'll get laughed at if I stand in the forecourt shouting about my basic freedoms.
No, it isn't. If clean drinking water was a basic God given right, we would all have running Evian water supplied for free or free water fountains at the ends of our streets refilled by the council.
Heck, some water supplies naturally contain flouride and a lot of bottled water doesn't even mention it on the label. You're ****ed really if you care about this MASSIVE LIFE ENDING issue so dearly.
Last edited:
No I don't actually, as my water supply is not flouridated, neither do I have a choice to have it flouridated. I would get charged water rates regardless of whether I used running water for drinking or not. You have the choice to introduce flouride in other ways if you so wish, why should those who do not wish too be forced to because you are too lazy to brush your teeth twice a day.
No, but you have the choice to buy a diesel car from another manufacturer.
Do I have the choice to obtain flouride free running water if it is routinely added? No.
I fail to see what God has got to do with anything, but the UN and the 192 countries of the general assembly disagree with you.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=sanitation&Cr1
Anyway, get off your high horse as I simply don't see the point of adding flouride to water supplies on the current evidence which is inconclusive either way. The money would be better spent on education and increasing access to dental treatment and regular checkups.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Well what's your flipping problem then? You're bitching because it is fluoridated, you're bitching because it isn't. Is this PMT?
I brush my teeth three times a day, floss after eating and use mouthwash. My water also is not fluoridated. I'm sure if it was though, the effect would be positive.
But that car manufacturer is the only one I can buy from.
Do you have the choice to buy bottled water instead and use water butts and underground water storage containers and cancel your water supply? Yes.
God, UN, General Assembly... my point was that in the real world, in real life, basic right/freedom/hullabaloo means squat because the world isn't perfect and beneficial services aren't provided for free by magic.
Current evidence that is inconclusive either way? So the UN/WHO/BDA/etc/etc/etc/etc and every scientific study (I'm sure there are a fair few) is inconclusive compared to some people on the internet who drank pure flouride and died or whatever?
It costs like... 50p per person per year to add fluoride to the water supply. I'm sure that would go a long way to employing more dentists and teachers... not.
Indeed, so why add it. You do overreact though. It seems it is you that has such a deep seated problem with this issue, not I.
I simply do not agree that the artificial flouridation of water supplies benefits the common good enough that it should infringe on our individual rights.
I think people are discarding the ethical questions too easily considering the evidence for adding flouride is inconclusive.
If we had a local referendum and the mojority of people wanted to add flouride, I would support them, if they didn't then I would support that. It is simple really.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
I'm only overreacting because it's a Friday evening and I'm bored and you're ranting about the incoming Apocalypse at the hands of fluoride.
The evidence isn't inconclusive. There's 50+ years of studies to back it up.
I simply do not agree that the artificial pollution of the world benefits the common good enough that it should infringe on our individual rights. Doesn't change anything though.
What!?!?!? The majority of people don't even know what fluoride is! I wouldn't trust the majority of people to decide whether Tesco should keep the Pic'N'Mix section!
People don't know what is good for them. Scientists and dentists do.
I am not bitching about anything. I simply stated that adding chemicals that have no effect on the safety of the water shouldn't arbitrarily added especially on weak evidence such as this is.
Why are you sure? What if when added to your excessive dental regimen the added flouride causes flourosis, especially in young children?
Why add it, when dental hygiene is so easily done otherwise.
Then diesel cars would not exist if the only manufacturer of cars supplied petrol models, so what is your point?
Um no, actually I don't. The infrastructure of water supply and sewage is generally shared, so I cannot chose to have my water supplied by other means easily or in the case of hygiene legally.
http://www.nofluoride.com/PDF/Carlsson_Opposes.pdf
50p per person in the UK would be around £35million per annum, ample amounts for education programmes and funding for free dental checkups for high risk groups and communities.
The studies about the risks and advantages are inconclusive which is why many countries have banned flouridation of their water supplies.
We have many health concerns in this country, we do not generally force medical treatment onto people simply because of a risk factor.
For example, We have a teenage pregnancy problem especially among the poor, so should we routinely add contraception chemicals to their drinking water? or does that infringe on their rights of freedom as human beings.
Last edited:
Where did I say it was dangerous to add flouride, I expressly stated that it was not.
Inventing my position to support your own is a little desperate.
There are equally as many that dispute it. Pollution is a separate issue, attempting to include it here again shows the weakness of your arguemnent.
How do you know what the majority do or do not know. And as it is the scientists and dentists that cannot agree, we should be cautious in any decision regarding adding chemicals that may or may not benefit people.
The only thing that all the Chemists, Scientists, Doctors and Dentists agree on is that flouride is more dangerous to children under five than adults, so again being as the benefits are unproven at best we should not be putting children at any increased risk, especially as the benefits can be obtained so easily elsewhere.
Anyway I'm bored now, so I bid you goodnight. Don't forget to brush your teeth before you go to bed yourself....
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
The positive effects of fluoride on dental health are not weak evidence.
Diesel cars do exist, but the only car manufacturer that I can buy from doesn't make them. My point was that you don't have a choice in whether your water is fluoridated or not because there is no alternative and your water supplier chooses for you. You may not agree with that, but you have no alternative. So suck it up.
Have you not heard of rain? New Eco houses collect rainwater and run it through a purifying system... means the house can be located miles from anywhere without the infrastructure. Other systems tap into the groundwater.
Oh wow, you found a pdf from a biased website with the opinion of one human being... MY EYES ARE OPENED.
Are you serious? Actually? £35 million would not pay for education programmes or funding for free dental checkups. Not if they were universal... and they would have to be universal otherwise that's other people basic rights being infringed upon. Maybe on the continent you could get by on that amount but here the UK... you're dreaming.
So many countries? I know it's banned in quite a few European countries... but that's because they already had low instances of cavities per 1000 of the population so there was no need for it. Hardly compelling.
Teenage pregnancy and poor dental health are not comparable. Stop it. Right now.
Diesel cars do exist, but the only car manufacturer that I can buy from doesn't make them. My point was that you don't have a choice in whether your water is fluoridated or not because there is no alternative and your water supplier chooses for you. You may not agree with that, but you have no alternative. So suck it up.
Have you not heard of rain? New Eco houses collect rainwater and run it through a purifying system... means the house can be located miles from anywhere without the infrastructure. Other systems tap into the groundwater.
Oh wow, you found a pdf from a biased website with the opinion of one human being... MY EYES ARE OPENED.
Are you serious? Actually? £35 million would not pay for education programmes or funding for free dental checkups. Not if they were universal... and they would have to be universal otherwise that's other people basic rights being infringed upon. Maybe on the continent you could get by on that amount but here the UK... you're dreaming.
So many countries? I know it's banned in quite a few European countries... but that's because they already had low instances of cavities per 1000 of the population so there was no need for it. Hardly compelling.
Teenage pregnancy and poor dental health are not comparable. Stop it. Right now.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Where did I say it was dangerous to add flouride, I expressly stated that it was not.
Inventing my position to support your own is a little desperate.
There are equally as many that dispute it. Pollution is a separate issue, attempting to include it here again shows the weakness of your arguemnent.
How do you know what the majority do or do not know. And as it is the scientists and dentists that cannot agree, we should be cautious in any decision regarding adding chemicals that may or may not benefit people.
The only thing that all the Chemists, Scientists, Doctors and Dentists agree on is that flouride is more dangerous to children under five than adults, so again being as the benefits are unproven at best we should not be putting children at any increased risk, especially as the benefits can be obtained so easily elsewhere.
Anyway I'm bored now, so I bid you goodnight. Don't forget to brush your teeth before you go to bed yourself....
Why are you ranting about it if you don't oppose it? Why are you bothered? It can't just be because you don't have a choice in it. Are you that bored?
I included your statement with pollution because it's equally as meaningless as yours was.
I interact with hundreds of people every day. The vast majority of them can't figure out where the toilets are when there is several signs pointing to them. People are, on the whole, pretty stupid. I would not trust them to decide on a health issue.
The majority of scientists and dentists do agree, that's my point. It's not as muddled as your making it out to be. In countries with poor dental health or high levels of cavities fluoride in the drinking water is beneficial. That's scientific fact and that's why it's added to our water (or was). In the US it's added because many people there can't afford dental care.
Scientists and dentists also agree that the amounts that were/are added to water supplies do not pose a significant danger to children under 5 and the effect of dental fluorosis on developing teeth is mild and not of aesthetic or health concern.
Where are you getting your facts from?
Why can you not buy from a manufacturer of diesel cars then? your analogy fails completely.
I am saying that we should indeed have the choice, much the same way as I can chose to have water softners added or not as the case may be.
I don't live in a new eco-house, and the fact that the majority of houses have shared infrastructure limits any choice to the point to be meaningless.
It simply illustrated a fact that not all scientist agree with your authoritarian viewpoint.
Why would they have to be universal. Flouridation of water supplies is not universal. £35million would be ample to support current funding already in place.
Only 5% of the world is flouridated. About half of that figure is in the US. Most countries who expressed a specific reason stated that there are better ways to provide fluoride that people need. Many also stated that not enough study has been done on the effects of flouride flushing on freshwater ecosystems to be able to assertain the risk factors involved.
The comparision is about forcing medical treatment on populations without their express permission and as such is a relevent comparison to make.
Last edited: