Calgary removes flouride from municipal water

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2011/02/08/calgary-fluoride-city-water-supply-removal.html

Calgary city council has voted 10-3 in favour of removing fluoride from the city's drinking water.

Two members of council, Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Ald. Brian Pincott, were out of town during Tuesday's vote.

Earlier in the day, city council considered and rejected by a vote of 8-5 putting the fluoride issue to a plebiscite during the 2013 municipal election. Council also rejected the idea of referring the matter to an expert panel.

Sodium Fluoride is a poison. It's about time it is removed from the water supply.

The US had made a move recently as well to reduce the amount of fluoride in the water supply. There is really no need for it. Hopefully this will inspire more people to go to their city councils to remove this poison from the water supply. Because you are being medicated against your will. I wonder how many other poisons are in our water that we have no idea about.

[Topaz]

If fluoride is bad than what is chlorine doing to our bodies and yet they say they need there to kill bacteria and I wonder why they haven't they kept up with the tech world by using other methods. The PUC in our area used so much chlorine , that we have to run the water for 5 minutes to get the smell out and then one here drinkis the water, only bottled. http://www.best-water-filter-guide.com/chlorine-in-drinking-water.html

[GostHacked]

If fluoride is bad than what is chlorine doing to our bodies and yet they say they need there to kill bacteria and I wonder why they haven't they kept up with the tech world by using other methods. The PUC in our area used so much chlorine , that we have to run the water for 5 minutes to get the smell out and then one here drinkis the water, only bottled. http://www.best-water-filter-guide.com/chlorine-in-drinking-water.html

Chlorine is a poison as well. I guess it's part of the reason people who have pools are making the switch to salt-water instead of chlorine.

[Oleg Bach]

The teeth are the pearls of the soul...and I don't want to sound anti-semitic - but what the hell is this thing about Jews controling dentistry - and making it so expensive that only a small amount of the population can afford to keep good teeth? Once you loose dental health you lose social status and good general health - Floride is just a chemical that is dispersed and dumped - it does make the teeth stronger - but it is also a poison to the mind and body....................POINT..................My daugther had a loft right next to a vacant lot...developers wanted to build on it but were told that the soil was toxic...so the couple of acres stays vacant..

What was there at one time was the COLGATE - TOOTH PASTE FACTORY ------so why is the soil considered toxic? It has so much floride in it that it is considered dangerous............go figure.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2011/01/25/f-fluoride-transcript-dickson-tomkins.html

More info for those interested.

[Shakeyhands]

One of my friends is a dentist, and they are seeing a lot more cavity issues with people drinking bottled water as opposed to the municipal water with flouride. He has recommended that we have the kids drink tap water instead.... Anecdotal yes, common sense yes.

[GostHacked]

One of my friends is a dentist, and they are seeing a lot more cavity issues with people drinking bottled water as opposed to the municipal water with flouride. He has recommended that we have the kids drink tap water instead.... Anecdotal yes, common sense yes.

I doubt it has anything to do with the water. Fluoride works on the outside of your teeth. There is a reason your dentist tells you not to swallow the fluoride and sticks that suction tube in your mouth when you get your teeth treated.

I would say that it's due to the amount of sugar that is in our foods or lack of oral hygiene is the reason we see those problems.

[wyly]

sounds like the MRM vaccine that many claimed caused autism, and it was all lies, the experts were correct...the experts tell us the treatment in the water is safe and it works but now we have city councilors who claim to know more than the experts, call me foolish but I trust the experts opinion more...

[GostHacked]

sounds like the MRM vaccine that many claimed caused autism, and it was all lies, the experts were correct...the experts tell us the treatment in the water is safe and it works but now we have city councilors who claim to know more than the experts, call me foolish but I trust the experts opinion more...

So why would the US reduce by almost half, the amount of fluoride in municipal water? Right, because we got things like toothpaste and mouthwash. Also dairy products are good for your teeth because dairy products are good for your bones, which teeth are, bones.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/08/us-usa-fluoride-idUSTRE7064CM20110108

Communities add fluoride to water on a voluntary basis. Doctors and dentists recommend it because it can help protect children's teeth that have not yet broken through the gums.

It can protect teeth that have not even really developed yet? Again fluoride is topical. It does nothing for your teeth when ingested.

Too much fluoride can cause a change in the enamel on teeth called dental fluorosis. More than 90 percent of U.S. cases appear as white spots on the tooth but in very severe cases it can pit the enamel.

You know what does helps teeth? Calcium.

Ask yourself why stuff like essential minerals and vitamins into the water supply to benefit us all? Why fluoride, and as Topaz indicates, chlorine??

[wyly]

So why would the US reduce by almost half, the amount of fluoride in municipal water? Right, because we got things like toothpaste and mouthwash. Also dairy products are good for your teeth because dairy products are good for your bones, which teeth are, bones.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/08/us-usa-fluoride-idUSTRE7064CM20110108

but it didn't eliminate them...so they see a benefit...

Ask yourself why stuff like essential minerals and vitamins into the water supply to benefit us all? Why fluoride, and as Topaz indicates, chlorine??

chlorine...well there was a time drinking untreated water or contaminated could kill you and it has in Canada recently...so I'll keep the chlorine thanks...

[fellowtraveller]

Dentistry used to be a one way ticket to Richville, but not so much anymore.

Fluoride in the water is one big reason....the current generation of kids raised on fluoridated water have far fewer cavities than previous generations, and cavities, extractions, root canals, caps, subsequent bridgework or implants etc are cut back significantly because of generally better oral health.

Another blow to the biz has been the economic recession. People are getting less veneers,whitening, braces and cosmetic work done because the $ are not available.

Source: my dentist. He has openings for new patients and is excellent.

[Sir Bandelot]

Flouride has been controlversial for many years. I'm inclined to go with nature, and say we don't need any extra flouride added to our water to help with dental health. Just stick to cleaning your teeth, and do it well that should be good enough.

I also wonder how harmful that flouride is, not just for people who ingest it but also for the environment at large. All that flouride is added to city water year after year, and it eventually all goes into the water cycle.

[segnosaur]

Flouride has been controlversial for many years. I'm inclined to go with nature, and say we don't need any extra flouride added to our water to help with dental health. Just stick to cleaning your teeth, and do it well that should be good enough.

Ummmm... technically, if you really decided to "go with nature", you'd spend your time eating grubs and roots. Good buy twinkies, Coke, and almost everything else you might be eating these days.

People had fewer problems with cavities in the past because they ate fewer foods that contained refined sugar. (Not to mention the fact that people didn't survive as long.)

I also wonder how harmful that flouride is, not just for people who ingest it...

Just like anything else, dosage is everything.

Fluoride is already contained in many foods. In large concentrations it can cause toxicity. It can also cause tooth discoloration. However, the amounts used in fluoridation are small and haven't been linked to problems in those concentrations.

[GostHacked]

Ummmm... technically, if you really decided to "go with nature", you'd spend your time eating grubs and roots. Good buy twinkies, Coke, and almost everything else you might be eating these days.

People had fewer problems with cavities in the past because they ate fewer foods that contained refined sugar. (Not to mention the fact that people didn't survive as long.)

Just like anything else, dosage is everything.

Fluoride is already contained in many foods. In large concentrations it can cause toxicity. It can also cause tooth discoloration. However, the amounts used in fluoridation are small and haven't been linked to problems in those concentrations.

I think what Bonam was getting at was that it goes into the environment like everything else we dispose of. It's a slow poisoning, but poisoning none the less.

[segnosaur]

I think what Bonam was getting at was that it goes into the environment like everything else we dispose of. It's a slow poisoning, but poisoning none the less.

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.

[Bonam]

I think what Bonam was getting at was that it goes into the environment like everything else we dispose of. It's a slow poisoning, but poisoning none the less.

As far as I'm aware I haven't posted in this thread.

[segnosaur]

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2011/01/25/f-fluoride-transcript-dickson-tomkins.html

More info for those interested.

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.

So why would the US reduce by almost half, the amount of fluoride in municipal water? Right, because we got things like toothpaste and mouthwash. Also dairy products are good for your teeth because dairy products are good for your bones, which teeth are, bones.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/08/us-usa-fluoride-idUSTRE7064CM20110108

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.

[GostHacked]

As far as I'm aware I haven't posted in this thread.

My apologies. I blame the fluoride.

[GostHacked]

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.

There is a warning on your tube of toothpaste, 'do not swallow'. And out of this 100 ml Crest toothpaste bottle, the percentage of sodium fluoride is 0.243%. I'd almost argue that if you drink your 8,8 ounce recommended glasses of water daily, you'd ingest that much fluoride per day.

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.

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.

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.

That's not my problem. If people don't want to brush, I am cool with that, however, there is no need to medicate the whole lot. I mean, again, why not put other things like vitamins and essential minerals we need as well as this fluoride? If we want to prevent a whole whack of other ailments and diseases and keep people healthy , why not throw that into the water as well? I mean it's going to benefit everyone right? That should result in less money spent on health care overall, right? I just don't quite understand the logic behind fluoridated water.

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.

Removing the luggage rack is negligible in improving the car's performance.

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

Well I'll sleep better at night knowing that you think so, segnosaur.

[kimmy]

The real reason the Calgarians have ended fluoridation: it's a tool of the left-wing pinko-commie conspiracy that weakens the minds of rugged individualists until they turn into atheists and vote for Trudeau! Believe it!

The teeth are the pearls of the soul...and I don't want to sound anti-semitic - but what the hell is this thing about Jews controling dentistry - and making it so expensive that only a small amount of the population can afford to keep good teeth?

lol wtf!

I've heard of the Jewish Banking conspiracy, the Jewish Media conspiracy, but this is honest to gosh the first time I've ever heard of the Jewish Dental conspiracy.

Does your dog talk to you, Oleg? Like, give you advice, suggest you do things, stuff like that?

-k

[Pliny]

I'm often taken aback at how in some areas of Africa the people have such healthy looking teeth.

They don't have flouride in their water but they also don't have sugar in their diet.

I don't hear the medical establishment mentioning too much about sugar and it's detrimental effects. I hear alot about salt, white flour but not much on sugar. There are some warnings but there is a faction that downplays the role of sugar in poor general health, including dental health. Apparently it has nothing to do with overactive behavior in kids either according to some.

I don't think we need flouride in the water. Our city claims they don't add flouride to the water. And I don't use a flouride toothpaste. Flouride does reduce sensitivity of the teeth, I think. The advice to use a toothpaste such as Sensodyne for sensitive teeth is because it has double the flouride of regular toothpastes. When I checked the ingredients that was about the only major difference. I often feel we don't get all the information when we are given advice on health.

[segnosaur]

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.

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".

And out of this 100 ml Crest toothpaste bottle, the percentage of sodium fluoride is 0.243%. I'd almost argue that if you drink your 8,8 ounce recommended glasses of water daily, you'd ingest that much fluoride per day.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

...however, there is no need to medicate the whole lot.

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.

I mean, again, why not put other things like vitamins and essential minerals we need as well as this fluoride?

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.)

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.

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.

[segnosaur]

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.

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.

[wyly]

I think what Bonam was getting at was that it goes into the environment like everything else we dispose of. It's a slow poisoning, but poisoning none the less.

I searched around trying to find an answer to that and from what little I could find is that it evaporates just as water does so it shouldn't accumulate in the water...