OT fluoridation of tap water

[JimWelsh]

Whats the sense to put it in water?

I'm pretty sure I've answered that question several times in this thread already, but I'll take one more stab at it: At the recommended concentration, it has been proven to be extraordinarily safe and efficacious at preventing tooth decay, with only one identified risk, which is merely cosmetic in nature. Please read the links I've provided.

 

[Cory]

Jim that rationalwikipedia article isnt very conclusive of much anything and seems more bashing towards "conspiracy theorists". Citing people like dr mercola as an internet quack, and bashing and belittling others. Seems like a place where bullies get together to hate on concerned people. In it they dont cite any positive things or articles about flouridated water. consider the source of Wikipedia Jim. Who writes wiki? Anyone. And do they need to put their real name? No. So why would they care about their reputation? They dont because nobody knows who wrote it. However, people like dr Mercola who risk their reputation by giving their identity, write about it. So Wikipedia to me is not a reliable source of informative information.

But if you can show me a scientific paper saying flouride is important for health, and not teeth. I might consider your argument that its nothing to worry about.

I understand you think i dont get your point about why they put it in municipal water. I do, because its good for preventing tooth decay. However so is flouridated tooth paste no? So this is why I ask why do they put it in tap water, when toothpaste has it. Why not give the choice? Im then not forced flouride in water which is vital for living. Seems very suspicious that its added without your control over it.

 

[jackson6745]

The is a logical explanation for everything on each side of the spectrum RO water is not only for my tank

 

[justaDutchguy]

We hear about this in Europe every now and then, here it's forbidden to be added in tapwater.
Tho what i am wondering is, why put something good foor your teeth thru the whole rest of your body for a longer time then the 3 seconds its in your mouth, then why did i have to sit there with the cherry flavored fluoride for 15 minutes as a kid.
Anyway, in the end it's all about who to believe and it's became near impossible to concider anything "a reliable source of information" with stakes so high and an overload of information.

 

[JimWelsh]

Cory, I provided the link to the CDC site (which is the one I really wish you would read). It is difficult to credibly dispute it as a source. Here's the link again -- there's an awful lot of information there that addresses all of the questions you are asking, and more, so some drilling down into the content via the menu at the left, or following the various embedded links is necessary to get to all the relevant content there http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.htm.

Following your reasoning about no direct health requirement for fluoride, then, to Randy's earlier point, please justify the use of chlorine in municipal water systems the same way. Shouldn't I be given the choice whether or not I want to drink chlorine and chloramines? Please show me a scientific paper that says free chlorine is important to health.

The reason to put it in the water for everybody to drink is that this benefits the poor and children who may not brush as often as they should, or who may not use fluoridated toothpaste. The reason to put it in the water even if you do use fluoridated toothpaste is because this increases the amount of fluoride found in saliva, which provides better protection still. It's all in the CDC link -- one only has to read it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Useful in tap water? Recommended doses? I was unaware of of the recommend drinking dosage of tap water. Toothpaste tubes say if you swallow more than a pea sized amount contact poison control

I guess you don't accept the recommended dose?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

We hear about this in Europe every now and then, here it's forbidden to be added in tapwater.
Tho what i am wondering is, why put something good foor your teeth thru the whole rest of your body for a longer time then the 3 seconds its in your mouth, then why did i have to sit there with the cherry flavored fluoride for 15 minutes as a kid.
Anyway, in the end it's all about who to believe and it's became near impossible to concider anything "a reliable source of information" with stakes so high and an overload of information.

The consumed fluoride gets to teeth (developing ones),and parts of teeth that are not exposed to purely topical treatments. So you may not want to do it, but there is a reason.

 

[Thales]

oops! Missed the second page!

 

[Cory]

Imo chlorine is necessary to prevent bacteria, not so much for health reasons, but the smell of h2s coming through pipes. But being its bad, is much easily removed with a carbon filter.

Flouride is not easily removed or cost effective to do it i would think. Fluoride however is completely unnecessary in tap water when comparing to chlorines use.

Jim, poor kids can even afford flouride toothpaste. Seriously? Lol
If your that poor, you wont even afford tap water.

 

[JimWelsh]

I have provided references to decades of research, the resulting data, and the practical application, all of which support fluoridation of public water supplies within a specific concentration range for public health purposes, by multiple independent organizations, associations, and agencies, worldwide.

You have provided your opinion, conjecture, and vague suspicion. Plus one relevant but debunked article.

If it were true that everyone's opinion, to which one is certainly entitled, regarding matters of fact were equally valid, then we would have a draw. But, that isn't true.

This is a subject about which there has been a great deal of scientific scrutiny for many decades, and about which there is a great deal of scientific consensus. And all opinions are not created equal when it comes to their informed validity.

Of course chlorine is important in the water supply, in order to kill pathogens. It provides a clear public health benefit. Likewise, fluoride also provides a clear public health benefit, and is important in its own realm, especially in certain fluoride-deficient areas.

 

[Cory]

I choose not to have flouride forced on me through municipal water. That is all that is relevant. I thought we live in the land of the free?

Who cares whos right or wrong, what's important is the power of choice for you and for me. at least fight for that.

 

[JimWelsh]

You do live in the land of the free. Feel free to refrain from using the municipal water supply. Otherwise, get an RO/DI filter and be done with it. You have clear choices. No fight necessary.

If, on the other hand, you believe that your lone objection, unsupported by any evidence, trumps the well-documented public good, then that's not not about "the land of the free", it's just about "the land of the me".

 

[Cory]

I do use ro/di. And distilled for drinking. Which costs me. So indirectly flouride isnt cheap. (For me)

Well they used to think abestos was not harmful, and now people remove asbestos containing walls. They used to think lead pipes were safe for water and now its a concern, and no longer used.

This is an interesting article:

http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

 

[biom]

Sorry, but what is the connection with our reef tanks or i miss something? May be Lounge is better sub-forum for this thread?

 

[Thales]

I think the discussion is relevant because it shows how people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.

Yes the Cochrane meta study is interesting - it was about adults, for which we have scant evidence because the vast majority of studies are about the effect of fluoride on children. In regards to fluoride being effective for children, the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[craigbingman]

Jim i was thinking, how you said its so cheap so why not dose it, but what comes to my mind is i read that its a waste product from aluminum industry, and nuclear power plants. Strange.

Fluoride is not a waste product of nuclear power plants.
Fluoride is a side product of phosphate production. That is because rocks that contain a lot of phosphate often also contain a lot of fluoride.

 

[craigbingman]

Sorry, but what is the connection with our reef tanks or i miss something? May be Lounge is better sub-forum for this thread?

There is actually substantial fluoride depletion over coral reefs. It is thought to be mainly a geological effect, as fluoride partitions into the carbonate minerals formed there. It is a real thing, and faster than you might think. My recollection is that the half-life for relaxation of a fluoride spike was around a week. And unless you are accidentally supplementing (through dissolution of carbonate minerals containing fluoride impurities) reef tanks run at lower than NSW concentrations of fluoride.

 

[biom]

There is actually substantial fluoride depletion over coral reefs. It is thought to be mainly a geological effect, as fluoride partitions into the carbonate minerals formed there. It is a real thing, and faster than you might think. My recollection is that the half-life for relaxation of a fluoride spike was around a week. And unless you are accidentally supplementing (through dissolution of carbonate minerals containing fluoride impurities) reef tanks run at lower than NSW concentrations of fluoride.

Thanks, do you think fluoride is of biological importance for corals or its depletion is mostly abiotic.