What is the highest fluoride toothpaste available?

Captain_Slick said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am not ranting, you are.

I also cannot help that the people who you associate with are of low intelligence. I can assure you that the majority of my peers do indeed know what flouride is.

I am in fact arguing about the choice, I don't care if flouride is in our water supply or the benefits or otherwise.

I simply do not wish to be forced into any kind of medical treatment, and it is an ethic question that I feel is important.

Anyway my point is clear, even if your limited understanding of it isn't so I bid you goodnight once again.:)
 
Last edited:
VeNT said:
5mg per KG of bodyweight ey?
so lets say I'm 83kg (which I am) thats 415mg
The active ingredients of Colgate TOTAL™ Toothpaste are:
Triclosan 0.300% w/w
Sodium Fluoride EP 0.32% w/w 1450 ppm F

so per 100mg tube you get 0.3mg Sodium Fluoride
so I'd have to eat 1383 x 100mg tubes of toothpaste before I had ANY effect from the fluoride.
Click to expand...

Per 100g tube you get 320mg of sodium flouride. ;)
 
Awesome. Still going late at night after I come home from a night out early. Thanks guys (especially the idiots talking about the hideous poisons).
 
I can't buy from a diesel car manufacturer in the same way that you can't buy water from a supplier that gives you a choice. It's a sound analogy.

The only reason you've come into this argument is because your authoritarian and need to control everything. Fluoride in the amounts that is added to water is not harmful so it doesn't matter either way. The choice doesn't matter. It's like complaining about someone planting free trees outside your house to be more environmentally friendly. Yes, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't help that much but it doesn't matter either way really.

You can choose to live in a new Eco house though. You can choose to move.

My authoritarian viewpoint? Mine? I don't give a toss. Scientists can add whatever they want to my water. I have more important things to care about.

It wouldn't be fair if it wasn't universal. I thought you'd want everything in this hippy land of yours to be fair and happy and equal and whatnot? No?

£35 million would get ****ed up the wall faster than it would get spent on promoting dental health.

Most of those countries don't have massive numbers of cavities per population. Fluoride in the water is hardly medical treatment. It happens naturally. Should all water be de-fluoridated before being used in the water supply?
 
Captain_Slick said:
I can't buy from a diesel car manufacturer in the same way that you can't buy water from a supplier that gives you a choice. It's a sound analogy.

The only reason you've come into this argument is because your authoritarian and need to control everything. Fluoride in the amounts that is added to water is not harmful so it doesn't matter either way. The choice doesn't matter. It's like complaining about someone planting free trees outside your house to be more environmentally friendly. Yes, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't help that much but it doesn't matter either way really.

You can choose to live in a new Eco house though. You can choose to move.

My authoritarian viewpoint? Mine? I don't give a toss. Scientists can add whatever they want to my water. I have more important things to care about.

It wouldn't be fair if it wasn't universal. I thought you'd want everything in this hippy land of yours to be fair and happy and equal and whatnot? No?

£35 million would get ****ed up the wall faster than it would get spent on promoting dental health.

Most of those countries don't have massive numbers of cavities per population. Fluoride in the water is hardly medical treatment. It happens naturally. Should all water be de-fluoridated before being used in the water supply?
Click to expand...

Oh dear. you are getting rather repetitive now.

Giving people a choice is not authoritarian, taking that choice away however is, which seems to be your viewpoint.

And adding something artificially to promote a medical response is indeed medical treatment.
 
Castiel said:
I am not ranting, you are.

I also cannot help that the people who you associate with are of low intelligence. I can assure you that the majority of my peers do indeed know what flouride is.

I am in fact arguing about the choice, I don't care if flouride is in our water supply or the benefits or otherwise.

I simply do not wish to be forced into any kind of medical treatment, and it is an ethic question that I feel is important.

Anyway my point is clear, even if your limited understanding of it isn't so I bid you goodnight once again.:)
Click to expand...

I'm not ranting. If I was ranting I WOULD BE TYPING LIKE THIS AND NOT USING PUNCTUATION AND VIRTUALLY INTERRUPTING YOU AND IGNORING ALL FACTS AND LALALALALA.

I don't associate with those people. I work with the public.

Fluoridation of drinking water is not medical treatment. That's hyperbole and ridiculous.

Can I sue PepsiCo for selling me water that contains a medical treatment? No. It wouldn't even be considered. I would be slapped with my own argument if I even tried it.

Go to bed.
 
Castiel said:
Oh dear. you are getting rather repetitive now.

Giving people a choice is not authoritarian, taking that choice away however is, which seems to be your viewpoint.

And adding something artificially to promote a medical response is indeed medical treatment.
Click to expand...

I'm repetitive because I'm consistent.

Giving people a meaningless choice is pretty cruel really. False hope of a better life without the evils of fluoride... and then BAM! They drink some water that's naturally fluoridated and their life is RUINED. All because of your choices and freedoms! Are you happy with yourself?
 
Captain_Slick said:
I don't associate with those people. I work with the public.
Click to expand...

You ask the public whether they know what flouride is on a regular basis. Strange.

Captain_Slick said:
Fluoridation of drinking water is not medical treatment. That's hyperbole and ridiculous.
Click to expand...




If fluoridation of drinking water offers no medical benefits (as it's not a medical treatment by your words) then why add it at a cost of c£35million, it would be better to save the money and invest it elsewhere.
 
Captain_Slick said:
I'm repetitive because I'm consistent.

Giving people a meaningless choice is pretty cruel really. False hope of a better life without the evils of fluoride... and then BAM! They drink some water that's naturally fluoridated and their life is RUINED. All because of your choices and freedoms! Are you happy with yourself?
Click to expand...


Consistently ignorant of the ethical question adding a medical treatment to our drinking supply entails.

Why would their life be ruined?

The choice is an ethical one and should be approached as such.

The same choice is given to smokers, drinkers, people who eat fatty foods etc. Why should the same not be true of drinking water.
 
Castiel said:
You ask the public whether they know what flouride is on a regular basis. Strange.






If fluoridation of drinking water offers no medical benefits (as it's not a medical treatment by your words) then why add it at a cost of c£35million, it would be better to save the money and invest it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I don't ask them whether they know what fluoride is... that would be a waste of time because most of them are unable to read.

It doesn't cost ~£35 million though because they only added it to the water where it would be beneficial.
 
Captain_Slick said:
I don't ask them whether they know what fluoride is... that would be a waste of time because most of them are unable to read.

It doesn't cost ~£35 million though because they only added it to the water where it would be beneficial.
Click to expand...

So it is a targeted medical treatment then. :p

I wonder if the customers of B&Q realise what a low opinion you have of them.
 
Castiel said:
Why would their life be ruined?

The choice is an ethical one and should be approached as such.

The same choice is given to smokers, drinkers, people who eat fatty foods etc. Why should the same not be true of drinking water.
Click to expand...

Do you have no sense of humour?

Ethics is **** though. Nobody cares about ethics. Ethics is a waste of everyone's time and solves nothing. Nothing good or bad would ever happen if the world was ruled entirely by ethics. It would be like living in purgatory... only with more headaches. Take your ethics and shove it up your arse.

As far as I'm aware, smokers have no alternative to cigarettes... unless you mean cigars and pipes? Drinkers have no alternative to alcoholic beverages that produces the same effects. Fatty foods aren't also made in a non-fatty version (generally). Toffee, for example. Toffee in a non-fatty version would be an empty wrapper. Analogy fail.
 
Castiel said:
So it is a targeted medical treatment then. :p

I wonder if the customers of B&Q realise what a low opinion you have of them.
Click to expand...

Fine. You win. I can't be arsed. It's not really a medical treatment though, really. It's more like throwing money at poor people.

My opinion of my customers doesn't matter so long as I give them the best advice I'm able to and provide them with the best products that we have available and make sure they're getting the best service I and my colleagues can provide. My opinion of my customers doesn't come into my job.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Consistently ignorant of the ethical question adding a medical treatment to our drinking supply entails.

Why would their life be ruined?

The choice is an ethical one and should be approached as such.

The same choice is given to smokers, drinkers, people who eat fatty foods etc. Why should the same not be true of drinking water.
Click to expand...

I think once again we're getting far away from the point:

1) You don't drink toothpaste...I hope.

2) You don't have a mains supply of tap-fresh colgate pumped into your home.
 
Captain_Slick said:
Do you have no sense of humour?

Ethics is **** though. Nobody cares about ethics. Ethics is a waste of everyone's time and solves nothing. Nothing good or bad would ever happen if the world was ruled entirely by ethics. It would be like living in purgatory... only with more headaches. Take your ethics and shove it up your arse.

As far as I'm aware, smokers have no alternative to cigarettes... unless you mean cigars and pipes? Drinkers have no alternative to alcoholic beverages that produces the same effects. Fatty foods aren't also made in a non-fatty version (generally). Toffee, for example. Toffee in a non-fatty version would be an empty wrapper. Analogy fail.
Click to expand...


The Analogy is that in all instances of medical treatment there is a choice of the individual to accept that treatment be it for smoking, obesity or alcoholism, whatever. Yet you argue that treatment for tooth decay should be forced by fluoridation of our drinking supply by artificial means to a level beneficial to us.

I say that the individual should have the choice to say no, without having to forgo running drinking water. Fluoride can and is provided by other means so arbitrary enforcement is unethical and unneccessary.

Ethics are fundamental to a functional society, to say they are meaningless shows your ignorance.
 
Captain_Slick said:
:p

I thought you were going to bed. I hope I'm not keeping you up...

Don't make me draw parallels with the argument for euthanasia.
Click to expand...

I'm in bed.

You don't need to draw parallels with euthanasia, mainly because there are none and secondly if you pump enough chemicals into the water supply the question is moot. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom