segnosaur

Sure it lacks some fine detail... You're missing the point... I only pointed out the "lack of fine detail" to explain why I picked the early 1980s as the date to use for comparing the rate of dental issues amongst various countries. No, its not. If the issue is "does fluoridation help", then any decline is irrelevant. Instead, you need to compare various groups with equivalent technologies/societies. When you do that, as I pointed out, Fluoridation reduces the rate of dental problems. Now, if you want to argue that "other factors may be more beneficial in stopping cavities", then you might have have a point. But that does not mean that fluoridation is not beneficial, even when those other factors are applied. Ummm, "marginally"? As I stated... every country that fluoridated its water was in the bottom half of countries with dental problems. In the early 80s, the worst record of dental problems among those countries that fluoridated their water was Australia (DMFT=6). The worst record of dental problems of countries that did not fluoridate their water were finland and iceland (DMFT~8). So you're talking about a 25% improvement! Sounds to me that that's a bit more than "marginal". So? The fact that the information comes from the WHO doesn't mean that it isn't being misinterpreted by the anti-fluoridation brigade. Heck, the 9/11 conspiracy believers take stuff out of context all the time. So do holocaust deniers. Just because they use accurate data/statistics doesn't necessarily mean they don't falsely manipulate things to reach false conclusions. Perhaps because its the only "medication" that actually makes logical sense to "force" on the population. (I already pointed out how your "vitamin" suggestion failed.) You might also ask "Why do we force parents to ensure they enroll their kids in school"? "Why do we force restaurants to comply with health/safety regulations"? Shouldn't we have the right to buy rotted beef carcasses if we so choose, or eat burgers tainted with cow droppings? The answer is that, in some cases, the harm to society outweigh any perceived risks. Oh, and by the way, you do realize that we already "force" medication on people. Apart from the rather obvious example of chlorination of water, the government can also force (for example) mentally ill patients to get treatment under certain circumstances.

The question that should be asked isn't "can it be done", the question should probably be "should it be done". You never provided a reference to this, but lets assume that its true. Australia has had a higher inflation rate (2.7% now, topping out at 5% in 2008) than Canada (2.4%, topping out at under 4% in 2008) for at least a few years, so its believable. Isn't this exactly like some posters were predicting? A raise in minimum wages causes basic prices to rise, making goods that the minimum wage earners might buy more expensive. The result: They aren't necessarily any better off. Why? Wouldn't it be more important for the average worker to have compassion? (i.e. refusing any raises above minimum wage to keep prices low.)

Nope. Science is a collection of facts, along with a mechanism for discovering facts. It has no interest in trying to find any supernatural invisible sky daddy. Unless of course you are expanding the definition of 'god' far outside what people normally attribute to it.

Congratulations. You can point to graphs. But your understanding seems a bit lacking. Granted, this graph is pretty difficult to determine fine detail (since data from different countries starts in different years, and much of the data is rather 'compressed' at the end.). However, pick a year (lets say, around 1980-82 range, when there's data from a significant number of countries but the lines are still far enough apart to tell what's happening.) Of the 14 countries we can differentiate in that time: - The 4 countries that actually fluoridated their water all placed in the bottom half of the DMFT index. On the other hand, none of the countries that fluoridated their water were in the top half of the DMFT index. In other words, at a particular point in time, countries that fluoridated their water usually had fewer dental problems than countries that did not. - In fact, only 2 countries that did not fluoridate their water in that time period had better statistics for dental care, and one of them (Britain) actually had partially fluoridated water So, it looks like the 'evidence' you've provided has done the opposite of what you were expecting; its demonstrated that fluoride does indeed help. Now, there has been a general decrease in the number of dental problems over the past few decades in both fluoridating and non-fluoridating communities. But that does not mean that fluoridation is ineffective. You have to do a proper comparison (i.e. compare data from the same year, when technology/education will be similar.) There are multiple factors at work (better dental procedures, improved education, etc.), but that doesn't mean that fluoride is irrelevant. In fact, it just makes a good situation that much better.

The medical grade is known as sodium fluoride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride .... but seems to come from the same industry. I am guessing through a different process, i'll have to look more into that. No, just no. The term "medical grade" is used as a term to suggest a product that contains a certain purity of chemical or effectiveness of medication. It has nothing to do with the origin of the chemicals, or the steps used to process them. So, your 'sodium fluoride' would not be 'medical grade' if it contained rat droppings. As I pointed out before, the term "medical grade" is misleading in this context, as we are dealing with a product which is to be ingested. You are totally missing the point... None of the food you eat, none of the beer you drink, none of that is "medical grade". So trying to say fluoride is not 'medical grade' is irrelevant because you would be holding it up to some standard you don't hold other food/drink up to. Not scared, just trying to inform. I quoted that document directly that states it IS a waste product. Not trying to scare you, just showing you a little truth. No need to 'inform'... I was already aware how some types of fluoride were created. But as I said before, that little 'truth' is something that is irrelevant and can safely be discarded. The fact that fluoride (or any other chemical) is a "waste by product" does not matter. The only thing that is relevant is safety and efficacy. Is it biased? You'd know that based on the fact you are not going to waste your time on it? Well, how about the fact that the header of the web page has the label "Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace"? Labeling something a "disgrace" is not exactly a way to appear as an unbiased source. Once again, if you actually have real scientific evidence, then lets see it. Otherwise, you're no better than a 9/11 conspiracy believer trying to get us to watch "unbiased video showing Joos brought down the twin towers with magic pixie dust". A true skeptic should consider the quality of the information source. I do not need to listen to Zundel in order to get a balanced view about whether the holocaust happened; I recognize Zundel to be an idiot and not worth listening to. I do not need to listen to some fundamentalist preacher to figure out whether evolution happened; the science is quite clear. If either of these sources had valid points, they could have provided them in a proper scientific forum. The same with anti-fluoridation activists. If there were valid concerns, they could be stated in a proper scientific forum. Instead, much like holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy believers, and creationists, we get a whole bunch of videos, non-expert "opinions", and web sites. Yet in the very first post, you called NaF a 'poison' and said it was time they removed it from the water supply. Nowhere did you ask any questions. Doubt it. Unless of course you want to define the word 'good' to mean 'spouts nonsense GostHacked happens to believe in'. Before you start pointing to information like that as suggesting that "fluoridation is unnecessary", consider the fact that many areas have naturally occurring fluoride. I rather suspect that those areas where they weren't fluoridating the water didn't need to because of natural fluoride. Nope, you also reduce it if you can receive similar benefit using lower quantities of the same chemical.

Actually, there are 3 types of chemicals typically used in fluoridation (Sodium fluoride, Fluorosilicic acid, and Sodium fluorosilicate). But regardless of the chemical, each compound breaks down, giving a fluorine ion (which is the part that is useful). None of these compounds has been shown to have any significant health problems at the concentrations used in Fluoridation. Ummmm.... So? Do you even know what the term 'medical grade' is? And by the way, do you think the food you eat is "medical grade"? What about the bottled water you drink? The fluoride compounds are consumed, not injected. Therefore, they should be on the same level as other consumable products. Um, so? Are we supposed to somehow be "scared" that some fluoride compounds are 'by products'? Why should that matter? Why should we care? Just because a chemical is a by product, does not mean that it is inherently unsafe. Did you know that trypsin (used by doctors to clean wounds) is a byproduct of beef production? I recognize what you're trying to do here.... you have no actual evidence that Fluoride is actually a problem, so you want to install false fear in people by labeling it a "waste byproduct". Again, so? People can be exposed to fluoride in the processing stages. Yes, we need to have proper procedures put in place. But that's the way we should handle every chemical. I sincerely doubt it. Why to people insist that some biased documentary is somehow more compelling than, you know, real scientific evidence? Its like the 9/11 conspiracy believers (OMG! The Joos destroyed the towers with pixie dust!), who seem to insist we watch lame videos to convince us of their viewpoint. If you have any real evidence, why don't you, you know, present it here? That way, your arguments can be demolished on a point by point basis. And frankly, even if we did watch the documentary, so what? Even if we pointed out the flaws in it I'm sure you would say "Oh, that wasn't an important part. Watch this other part".

Fine. As long as you realize that by not paying for the "state funded" drug programs, you will likely end up paying more out of your pocket, as dental problems end up costing the welfare system, the health care system (when dental problems result in abscesses), and any private insurance programs you have (where premiums might rise if too many people develop cavities). So, since you seem to have all this extra money, do you think you can give me a few bucks? You see, I like money, and I'd rather keep as much of it in my pocket as possible. Since you seem to prefer paying for dental care that might not be necessary if water had fluoride added you must have a lot of extra cash on hand. You're right, there's no guarantee that people will be drinking the tap water. But tap water is so commonly used (both directly, and/or as part of other foods; e.g. coffee/tea, ice cubes, etc. including at restaurants) that it would be almost impossible not to be exposed to it at some time throughout the day. You'd have to be a pretty paranoid nutcase to avoid all such contact with tap water.

In fact it does. The reality is, people are lazy. Yup, gotta agree with Smallc. Some people are lazy. Some are just ignorant (i.e. "toothpaste? What's that? I don't need it. I'll just pop a breath mint."). Some have misplaced priorities. And some (e.g. kids) may have parents who have not provided for proper dental care. Yes, in an ideal world, everyone would brush their teeth regularly, everyone would avoid sugary snacks, and they'd visit their dentist every 6 months for a proper cleaning. And parents will always ensure their kids learn proper dental care too. Sadly, not everyone does what's best for them. Granted there are limits on just how much I would want government to interfere in my private life "for the public good", but this seems like a reasonable intrusion.

Its been attributed to Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." http://coolquotescollection.com/4456/i-contend-that-we-are-both-atheists-i-just-believe-in-one-fewer-god-than-you-do

Sports economists have studied the hell out of this. Arenas and stadia do bupkis for cities in real economic terms. Actually I've read pretty much the same thing. (The idea is that money spent by people going to things like hockey games, etc. is fungible, and if they don't go to a game, they might instead use it for movies, restaurant meals, etc., since the money spent is something that would be considered disposable income earmarked for entertainment purposes. So, the economy benefits with or without the stadium.) So, I should have perhaps qualified my statement a bit: A city might benefit if the presence of the stadium provides benefits to the tourism industry. (I touched on that when I mentioned hotel occupancy taxes.) Of course, not all teams will draw people from outside the region. I should also point out that it would be beneficial if the stadium is also used for other purposes (especially conventions that do tend to cater to travelers rather than just the local population.)

So why not force us to take vitamins and other essential minerals in our water? We do need that our daily diet. Why just chlorine and fluoride? Ummm... I already explained that in post #23 of this thread. Perhaps you might want to go back and review that. To summarize the arguments from that post: - There is likely no benefit from added vitamins from the water, but a greater risk of overdosing on certain nutrients; thus, trying to set a proper 'dosage' would be impossible (whereas the risks/benefits of fluoride are easier to control) - Fluoride is relatively cheap (the amount needed to be effective) compared to (for example) vitamins How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously when you repeat questions that have been answered in previous posts? Ummmm.... in case you didn't notice, my question (how to stop people from eating sugary foods) was asked in response to a poster who said "we don't need fluoride because the problem is poor diet" (paraphrasing here). Once again.... As I stated in post #23, it is your problem. - Many provinces offer dental services to welfare recipients (which costs you and me through taxes) - Private dental insurance splits costs/risks amongst many customers; this, your coworker who gets more cavities means that you end up paying more in premiums - Cavities can lead to abscesses and other significant health problems, which might require visits to the doctor (or even hospital), thus taking even more money out of your pocket in taxes Hey, personally I like having money in my pocket. Maybe you don't, but I'd much rather have the government spend a couple of bucks adding a chemical that is harmless in small quantities to the water supply that will prevent cavities, than spend thousands of dollars dealing with serious infections because someone didn't get a cavity filled and ended up in the hospital as a result. Or have my dental insurance rates double because my coworker thinks brushing teeth is a sin. So, if you think you have so much extra money that you can afford to have it spent unnecessarily, would you mind sending some to me? We all do? News to me. According to the Canadian Dental Association, only around 62% of the population have private insurance with dental coverage (see: http://www.cda-adc.ca/en/cda/news_events/statistics/default.asp). That leaves roughly 4 people in 10 that have no dental coverage. Last time I checked, 4 in 10 was a pretty big chunk of the population. Heck, we've had governments elected with a smaller portion of the vote. And guess what? Many of them are on welfare, which can mean that the cost of filling their cavities falls on you and me. Oh, and by the way, do you have any idea how health insurance works? People pay premiums, and the insurance companies pays out for certain work. If the government has to pay out more for certain types of work (e.g. filling cavities), then they may increase the premiums for everyone. Which of course is the type of B.S. straw man that I pointed out a long long time ago. So what if it does "no good in the bloodstream"? It also does no harm there either (at the concentrations typically used). But if you want to maximize the number who have it applied to the teeth, then putting it in drinking water is the best solution. Yup, they add chlorine. Of course, this is done to control bacteria growth. Your 'pure filtered water' without chlorine runs a higher risk of bacteria growth. Already dealt with that. I know you made that statement just to be a butt-head. But really... As I said before: - Adding vitamin C (to a useful level) will be a lot more expensive than adding fluoride - Adding multivitamins to the diet has shown no significant health effects (I provided references in my earlier post) - There is a much greater risk of overdosing on vitamin C, since the quantities needed to "help" are so much greater

As long as you're blaming things, you should also be blaming a lack of proper day-to-day dental care among a significant portion of the population. And while we would be better off if everyone ate right, brushed their teeth, and saw a dentist, it is currently just a pipe dream. Such social changes are unlikely to come in any time in the near future, and until they do, adding fluoride to tap water is the best possible "secondary measure" available. By the way, how exactly do you plan to force people not to eat sugary foods? Well, that dentist/jewler is reasonably well educated, likely has to support a staff and the infrastructure needed for the clinic. Its expensive because, well, its just the cost of doing things. Much dental work is done fixing cavities rather than preventing them. Do you really think we'll be better off having the dentist: - Inject us with novocaine (which is a drug that can have dangerous side effects in a small number of cases) - Drill away inside our mouths (painful for a lot of us) - Inserting dental amalgam, which often contains mercury (for which there is no evidence of problems associated with fillings, but some may not like having heavy metals in their mouths) And you consider that preferable to taking steps that will prevent the cavities from happening in the first place (i.e. using fluoride)? I see... Here's a suggestion.. if you get a chance, watch the TV show Penn & Teller: B.S. They do an episode where they set up a fake restaurant featuring "premium bottle water" (e.g. amazonian bottled water, himilyaing glacial water, etc.) The customers all raved at how wonderful the water tasted compared to what they normally drink. Then they showed the waiter filling all the bottles with a garden hose. Yup, everyone that thought their bottled water was so 'great' was drinking the same stuff that comes out of the taps. Define 'pure'. You mean well-water? Remember, a lot of well water also has lots of dissolved minerals (not to mention the possibility of germs in the water. Yummm...) The only "pure water" is if you drank it distilled. Here's what I find ironic... you point to how in the old days there were no "rich dentists". But then, dentists were "for extraction". Not exactly very technically proficient. Yes, dentists earn more these days than in the past. But then, so do you. Not only that, their techniques/technology have improved. Is that worth the extra money? Some might think so.

It sounds to me like you're saying, you don't see a problem with flouride at the current levels, for any reason. I guess the US government, various countries in Europe, and some Canadian municipalities have got it completely wrong then... First of all, your original response (and the one I criticized) was directly related to the accusation of fluoride "poisoning the environment". And if that's the issue you want to deal with, then yes, I have no problem with the current levels of fluoridation since I see no problem with it having any sort of negative environmental impact. Secondly, not sure what you mean by "the US government/various countries/etc. getting it wrong". Are you referring to the fact that some governments have reduced recommended fluoride levels? Or that some cities (like Calgary) have stopped Fluoridation? In that case, I'd have to consider the situation on a case by case bases. Some decisions might be done more due to politics or fear mongering, others might be due to a genuine analysis of risks vs. benefits.

You're welcome. I hope I didn't step on your toes there, or put words in your mouth. (If I did I apologize). But, I kind of saw where you were coming from and thought seeing things described in a slightly different way might make a difference.

Ummm... why exactly are the 2 issues mutually exclusive? Even if you support covering dental care under public health care, why does that preclude the use of fluoride in drinking water? Using fluoride is a preventative measure. It helps ensure that even if we do have public dental care that people keep their teeth. And why shouldn't cost be a consideration? Its a lot cheaper to issue vaccines than it is to treat the resulting diseases.

I think he's arguing that the CFL has value to Canada that cannot be measured economically (e.g. he mentioned "bringing the country together"), and its something that can be done relatively cheaply. On the other hand, in the case of the NHL: - Hockey is less likely to disappear from Canada (e.g. we'll probably always have teams in Toronto and Montreal, even if some of the smaller market teams fail) - With its higher revenues/salaries and the focus on the U.S. market, the NHL may not be as relevant to Canadian identity as it once was

Sure it is. If it was a sound, economically viable idea, the private sector would build it themselves. Not necessarily... A private sector stadium/arena really only sees benefits/revenue from properties it owns/controls (e.g. arena rental, parking, concessions, naming rights, advertising, etc.). On the other hand, when a government invests in such a stadium it can see benefits outside those associated with the stadium itself. For example, a stadium might increase tourism in the area (and thus bring the government additional revenue through hotel occupancy taxes, increased tax base, etc.) This is, of course, assumes that there is a successful sports franchise playing there. That said, I am not necessarily convinced that investing public money in an arena is a good thing. Having a private team playing at a publicly financed stadium lessens the attachment that the team may have to the city. (For example, the Ottawa Senators own Scotia Bank Place; this means that if they decide to move the team, the arena looses much of their value, so it provides at least some incentive to stay. If it was a public arena, there would be very little to prevent the Senators from moving to the town of BrainDeadSwamp, Ark. if they town offered a better arena deal.

Actually, I assumed both you and fellowtraveller were both kidding, so I was playing along. I doubt here really believes in a "global jewish conspiricy" to either rule the world, or convince the world of a conspiracy.

I really have to wonder... How does wanting a decocracy "guided by non-violence, rule of law and respect for human rights" actually mean that he "supports Mubarak"? Really, the opinion piece from the opening post simply makes no sense. Really have to wonder about that too... Given the fact that votes in the U.N. are selected by the governments of the countries (not typically by popular vote) and that many of those governments are often not democratic in nature, how exactly is calling for the overthrow of governments going to win Canada any seats? Do you think the government of Syria is saying "Hurry! Overthrow the dictators! No, wait...."

Do you see the Joos behind that too? Actually, it was the Jewish Nazis, acting on behalf of the illuminati. They get their instructions during the meetings of the Bilderberg group.

Not sure if that's quite right. (You have a reference for that?) Fluorine is an element that is extremely reactive with other atoms. When in water it will become an ion, but outside of that it will form compounds which are not exactly gaseous. I think the reason it doesn't accumulate is that it is so soluble that it can easily be transported or 'flushed' out of the environment. (That, and the concentrations we'd be adding to the environment are tiny compared to the amount of naturally occurring fluoride.)

Well I'll sleep better at night knowing that you think so, segnosaur. Sarcasm (and useless posting) noted. An earlier poster made a very vague accusation about fluoride "poisoning the environment" (one for which he provided absolutely no evidence I might add.) I explained in very general terms why it was not likely an issue. Now, if you have any actual real evidence that indeed fluoride is "poisoning the environment", lets see it. Heck, if you even have a theoretical model explaining how it might actually happen then by all means post it. And I will deal with whatever "evidence" you provide.

There is a warning on your tube of toothpaste, 'do not swallow'. Yes there is. Of course, that may not necessarily be because they actually have proof that the amounts for fluoride in toothpaste are harmful if swallowed to the average person. They may have the warning for people who live in areas that have naturally high levels of fluoride (for which overdosing is something to be concerned about). They may have it on there because there are other chemicals in toothpaste which may also be problematic if swallowed. Or maybe they are concerned about (for example) children eating toothpaste from the tube (which can cause problems.) All in all, its probably partly a case of "better safe than sorry". Well, lets see... the recommended consumption of liquids is around 8 glasses a day, which works out to about 2 litres. Recommended fluoridation is around .5-1.1 mg/L (depending on which country or which organization you're dealing with.) Lets pick 1mg/L to to make the math easier. That means you'd be getting roughly 2mg of ingested fluoride. (Of course, that assumes that all your fluid intake is from tap water; if you're drinking bottled water, or using some filter, you might be getting a lot less. Now, a tube of toothpaste supposedly contains roughly 200g of toothpaste, of which 0.24% sodium fluoride, or 480 micrograms total. Not sure how much toothpaste you use in a month, but lets say a tube gets used over 2 months (60 days). If you swallowed all that toothpaste, you,d be getting 8mg of fluoride per day, or roughly 4 times the amount you'd get from tap water. Now, these are very rough calculations (e.g. I haven't dealt properly with elemental vs. molecular weight), but it does show your suggestion that you'd ingest more from drinking water than toothpaste is wrong. Of course, like I mentioned earlier, its probably pretty irrelevant. Any warnings on the tube are probably more for liability in case some parent accidentally lets their 2 year old eat paste straight from the tube. And yet we have facilities to take out all the contaminates in water for us to consume. With a natural source, one can buy a filter to take the contaminates out, including fluoride. Yes they do have such filters, but that doesn't mean that everyone is using them. I myself certainly don't use such filters. That's not my problem. If people don't want to brush, I am cool with that... Actually, indirectly it is. Not sure if its universal, but many provinces provide dental care to those who are on welfare. Plus, many of us have private insurance where we pay premiums and share the risk with people who may not be brushing properly. (So, your premiums may go up because your non-brushing coworker ends up with extra cavities . Not to mention the fact that poor dental care can lead to more serious health risks; for example, a dental abscess can lead to medical visits to a physician, which costs the health care system even if dental care isn't covered. So you benefit whenever the overall incidence of cavities decreases, even if you take perfect care of your teeth. So yes, it does affect you, at least financially, even if such costs are hidden deep Well, do you have a way to force everyone to brush regularly? Now, if you want to argue that "personal freedom should trump the public good", I'd say you have a valid argument and one worth considering. But don't hide behind bad science. Because, unless the person has a particular medical condition, there may be no benefits to individuals receiving doses of multivitamins. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/1688 and http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60992.html) Not to mention that some vitamins (but not all) are fat-soluable and can build up in the body, and high doses of some vitamins may be counterproductive. So while a single chemical (fluoride) is easy to control the dosage for in a population, its pretty much impossible for other potentially useful chemicals. (Plus, I assume cost would also be an issue; fluoride is very inexpensive; spiking our tap water with Vitamin C would be more expensive.) Removing the luggage rack is negligible in improving the car's performance. Ummm... keep in mind that in my analogy, I specifically used the phrase "better gas mileage", which will be affected by both your engine performance and the aerodynamics of the car. So, the point still stands... while dairy consumption will help build strong teeth, that doesn't necessarily mean that fluoride won't provide additional benefit.

Gotta say, the statements by Dr. Dickson really make me want to punch him in the face. Hard. In the interview (at least the printed one), he engages in all the type of scientific B.S. I dislike: building straw men (the whole "fluoride is only beneficial when applied topically"), fear mongering (labeling Fluoride as 'toxic', while ignoring the issue of dosage), and misusing statistics. Frankly, even if he did have a valid point, those types of deceptive practices make me hesitant to trust anything he says. First of all, the article points out that one of the main reasons why they reduced the recommended concentration was because many areas already had fluoride in their drinking water from natural sources. Secondly, you are right in that we do have fluoride in toothpaste/mouthwash. Heck, we've had fluoridated toothpaste since around 1914. The problem is, not all people properly use toothpaste. Lastly, you are right in that sources of calcium are good for both bones and teeth; however, that does not mean that fluoride sources cannot provide further benefit. Its like a car: Tuning the engine may give you better gas mileage, but that doesn't also mean you won't get a benefit from (for example) removing the luggage rack from your car.

It would only be 'poisoning' if it was accumulating in a way that would increase our exposure. For most of us, our waste fluoridated tap water likely finds itself in the sewer system, or in bodies of water which are not stagnant, and ends up being flushed into the oceans. I know of no mechanism for accumulation to a point where it would pose a health threat. In addition, the concentrations used are small to begin with, but will likely be even further diluted (i.e. made even safer) when they end up in larger bodies of water.