I would be much more worried about those silver fillings you have.
They certainly do cause an accumulation of heavy metals in the brain stem.
The fluroide effect, with accumulation is again dose related, its all very much dose related.
As i stated in my previous post, in a different society we wouldn't need water fluroidation, it would be surplus to requirements. Unfortunately the one region which would benefit the most is the region where it isn't taking place. Water fluroidation does cut rates of decay, dramatically, and more so when inherent diets are bad with regards fermentable sugars.
The benficial effects have to be weighed up against the bad effects, of which fluorsis is by far and away the most common. Flurosis is dose related, but with individual variation like everything else. Too much fluroide and you will get fluorsis. As for the neurotoxic effects, and the osteo effects less is known, significantly less, as the regions that could conduct proper studies, the US, tend to direct their research monies into money making projects, they will seek items to reduce fluroide load, or remove fluroide from a system, rather than actually investigate if it is necessary.
So you have to weigh up the unconfirmed evidence that links to a limited number of a very rare cancer being potentially caused, against the large numbers of children undergoing general anaesthetics for the the removal of rotten teeth, and the potential side effects of such processes. Kids die under anaesthetic, its a low number but they die, people do, and this is irrefutable.
As for the way tooth and bone turnover, its the application of topical fluroide against teeth which would have the most benefit in this case, so the use of a toothpaste corrcetly, with a moderated diet should help, and remove the need for water fluroidation. Diet diet diet. When you reinforce that to people sufficiently, then the need for the water to be altered is gone.
But we do not know for certain fluoride helps fight tooth decay. Some studies have shown it does help fight tooth decay, some have shown it doesn't, some have shown it causes fluorosis and is bad for teeth.
Which studies are correct? Of course I cannot say for certain as I never done the studies. I am not going to blindly ignore the scientists, doctors and dentists who says fluoride is dangerous and actually bad for teeth.
Hmm, i have read the research, looked at the information, looked at the studies. Those who link flurosis are based on concentration. They are not based on fluroide yes or no. This is VeRy well documented. Unfortunately I have to withdraw from this now, as you clearly haven't read any papers at all on the topic just the headlines. All peer reviewed accepted articles acknowledge the effects of flouride ( not fluroidation) in the role of fighting decay. If you can't accept that, then the very basics of the well documented pathways and acientific process are lost on you.
