Calgary removes flouride from municipal water

[Bonam]

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.

Clearly, these customers were not water connoisseurs. I can tell the difference between at least 4 or 5 brands of bottled water. And you can definitely tell tap water from bottled water super easily by the taste of chlorine. To be honest, I tend to have the same problem as Oleg... when I just have tap water I notice myself drinking WAY less water throughout the day just because it tastes so bad. Really, sometimes I find myself having drunk maybe 1/4 of a 500 mL bottle of tap water if that's what I have with me at work, whereas normally I drink 2 500 mL bottles of bottled spring water. When I go hiking I take tap water that way I drink it slowly throughout the day, if I take bottled spring water I just drink it all at the first rest stop cause it tastes so good. The difference is like night and day.

Most people I've talked to that are used to drinking tap water can't tell the difference. I dunno, maybe I am just different that way. I can even taste the difference just depending on what I drink it out of: a plastic bottle, a stainless steel bottle, a styrofoam cup, a ceramic mug, a glass... all give distinct tastes to water they are holding. Actually the styrofoam cup probably has the least effect on the taste out of those.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

Clearly, these customers were not water connoisseurs. I can tell the difference between at least 4 or 5 brands of bottled water. And you can definitely tell tap water from bottled water super easily by the taste of chlorine. To be honest, I tend to have the same problem as Oleg... when I just have tap water I notice myself drinking WAY less water throughout the day just because it tastes so bad. Really, sometimes I find myself having drunk maybe 1/4 of a 500 mL bottle of tap water if that's what I have with me at work, whereas normally I drink 2 500 mL bottles of bottled spring water. When I go hiking I take tap water that way I drink it slowly throughout the day, if I take bottled spring water I just drink it all at the first rest stop cause it tastes so good. The difference is like night and day.

Most people I've talked to that are used to drinking tap water can't tell the difference. I dunno, maybe I am just different that way. I can even taste the difference just depending on what I drink it out of: a plastic bottle, a stainless steel bottle, a styrofoam cup, a ceramic mug, a glass... all give distinct tastes to water they are holding. Actually the styrofoam cup probably has the least effect on the taste out of those.

It's an interesting point, Bonam. I'm solely a tap-water drinker. Mind you, Fredericton is famous for its high-quality water; but while that might have something to do with it, I doubt it. Bottled water doesn't taste any different to me.

It probably is a matter of learning to taste it. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

After all, some people insist that snow has no odour. Incredible assertion; snow has a distinct odour (and probably can be differentiated between different types of snow). Everyone smells it, they just don't know it.

So I'm guessing you're right.

[Mr.Canada]

Well where I live we have very hard water and no one drinks it without having it RO filtered. Everyone who lives around me that I know has an RO filter so this filters out everything. SO i haven't drank city water of any city in a long time.

However, I support he people of Calgary for making the choice they did. The State has no place forcing medication on the public at large and Fluoride is a drug of sorts.

[segnosaur]

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.

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?

By the way, how exactly do you plan to force people not to eat sugary foods?

You don't.

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).

If they want to eat sugar and have rotten teeth, again, not my problem.

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?

And since we all get the dental coverage from our employers (in most cases) there is really no cost to the general public.

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.

Indeed, and fluoride works best topically on the teeth. It does no good on the inside of your teeth (with it being in your bloodstream).

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.

That is why there are water filters/conditioners that take OUT the contaminates. Even the municipal water system does this. But yet adds chlorine and fluoride.

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.

I sure could use some Vitamin C in my water .. hmmmm. Wonder how long it would take to get that added to the water ... or is it not a good idea?

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

[Smallc]

Clearly, these customers were not water connoisseurs. I can tell the difference between at least 4 or 5 brands of bottled water.

Very true. For example, I can't stand re mineralized water. I drink water all of the time, but I'm very picky. It either has to be Evian, or reverse osmosis with no re mineralization.

[wyly]

Very true. For example, I can't stand re mineralized water. I drink water all of the time, but I'm very picky. It either has to be Evian, or reverse osmosis with no re mineralization.

I don't care for the carbonated water I had in europe...my local tap water works for me, tastes the same as bottled and a lot cheaper...

[Bonam]

I don't care for the carbonated water I had in europe...my local tap water works for me, tastes the same as bottled and a lot cheaper...

It really doesn't. It's just a matter of whether you, personally, can tell the difference, or care to notice the difference. My friends look at me like an idiot when I tell them all beer tastes the same to me, but I can't help it, I very rarely drink it and when I do I really don't notice any difference. I'm sure they're right... there's probably a difference in taste, I just can't notice it myself. Similarly, you can't tell the difference between bottled and tap water, and that's great, you get to save money. But that doesn't mean they taste the same.

[fellowtraveller]

Evian spelled backwards is naive.

hth.

[Mr.Canada]

I'm sure even the very poor can afford toothpaste and if they cannot there are plenty of places that give it and toothbrushes away for free.

So the argument that we need it in our water doesn't hold any.

[Smallc]

In fact it does. The reality is, people are lazy.

[Jack Weber]

In fact it does. The reality is, people are lazy.

Do you realize what you've done??

Mr.Falange is probably going to use your response to go off on some anti-immigration rant...

Nice going!!!

[segnosaur]

I'm sure even the very poor can afford toothpaste and if they cannot there are plenty of places that give it and toothbrushes away for free.

So the argument that we need it in our water doesn't hold any.

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.

Edited February 14, 2011 by segnosaur

[Mr.Canada]

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.

I believe in personal responsibility not state funded forced drug programs. Plus there's no guarantee that people who don't brush will even drink the water thus the forced drug regimen is wasted anyways.

[segnosaur]

I believe in personal responsibility not state funded forced drug programs.

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.

Plus there's no guarantee that people who don't brush will even drink the water thus the forced drug regimen is wasted anyways.

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.

Edited February 14, 2011 by segnosaur

[guyser]

I believe in personal responsibility not state funded forced drug programs.

How do you reconcile that while being a union goon?

Personal responsibility....you mean if a co-worker is a screw up he gets fired liked a non-union member would? Suuure.....

So a union shop worker isnt forced to pay his union dues? Cool !

Edited February 14, 2011 by guyser

[fellowtraveller]

So a union shop worker isnt forced to pay his union dues? Cool !

I love the way that deal is rigged. They cannot force you to join the union because your civil rights would be violated thereby, but your dues are deducted anyway.

Welcome to Canuckistan.

[GostHacked]

Ok, I was not aware of this, but there are two different types of fluoride (maybe more??). Apparently the fluoride in water is not medical grade fluoride, but in fact a waste by product of the fertilizer industries.

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/water/wq/facts/fluoride_en.html

The City of Ottawa uses Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFS) to fluoridate drinking water. It comes in the form of a liquid solution that is delivered to the treatment plant in tanker trucks. Liquid HFS is added to drinking water during the final stage of the water treatment process. All chemicals used in water purification must be approved for application in potable water. This means that they must meet a number of product quality standards including AWWA/ASTM and NSF- 60 certification.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1233.htm

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf

Fluorosilicic acid is mainly produced as a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers where phosphate rock is treated with sulfuric acid. It can also be made by the reaction of sulfuric acid on barium hexafluorosilicate, apatite, or fluorite (fluorspar).

However the article mentions ...

Human Exposure

Potential exposure to sodium hexafluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid is via inhalation and eye

and skin contact. Another route for the former compound is ingestion. Although current data

indicate that silicofluorides are used in over 9200 U.S. water treatment systems, serving over 120

million individuals, exposure via drinking water is expected to be minimal since both compounds

hydrolyze almost completely under these conditions.

?

Also just caught this doc .. worth a watch.

http://www.firewaterfilm.com/watchfilm.htm

[Oleg Bach]

This is bull shit..it is all about usery...If we have public health care - why are teeth not included - they are part of the body are they not?

[segnosaur]

Ok, I was not aware of this, but there are two different types of fluoride (maybe more??)

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.

Apparently the fluoride in water is not medical grade fluoride...

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.

..but in fact a waste by product of the fertilizer industries.

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".

However the article mentions ...

Human Exposure

Potential exposure to sodium hexafluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid is via inhalation and eye

and skin contact. Another route for the former compound is ingestion. Although current data

indicate that silicofluorides are used in over 9200 U.S. water treatment systems, serving over 120

million individuals, exposure via drinking water is expected to be minimal since both compounds

hydrolyze almost completely under these conditions.

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.

Also just caught this doc .. worth a watch.

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".

[GostHacked]

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?

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.

Actually there seems to be two medical grade types. The other is calcium fluoride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride , but again seems to come from the same process.

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.

I don't drink bottled water for one, for the simple fact bottled water is not regulated like municipal water. But it is important to note that a lot of bottled water out there comes from the same municipal source that tap water comes out of.

Fluoride seems to be in more foods that we know (in various forms). And if that is the case, then people are getting more than just the small amounts that are in the water supply. Possibly more than the 'recommended' safe daily dosage.

Um, so? Are we supposed to somehow be "scared" that some fluoride compounds are 'by products'? Why should that matter? Why should we care?

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.

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?

First time I heard of that item. Just looked it up, and seems ok. I claim ignorance on that one.

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".

Well, even the government documents I looked at, and posted here (if you want to believe in them or not) specifically states that the type of fluoride in the water is the byproduct of the fertilizer industry. I mean it's right there for you to read. You can ignore it, but it would not make it any less true.

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.

No arguments there. Hazardous waste should be treated and handled with caution and care.

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".

Is it biased? You'd know that based on the fact you are not going to waste your time on it? That's not my problem, usually people look at anything that is presented and then make a decision afterward. Not to mention you are making a lot of assumptions about what my reactions would be. I am trying to inform myself about it. Part of the reason I made this thread. Not my fault if you want to continue to live in the dark about it.

The documentary is actually pretty good. Many parts of Australia were not fluoridating their water, and the cases of cavities were about the same to those communities that were fluoridating their water.

http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/2010/jul/2/science-and-technology/do-you-know-what-your-drinking-water/

According to Dr. Mitra Doherty, a practicing dental surgeon, the medical grade fluoride found in toothpastes and used in medical studies differs from the industrial grade fluoride used in the water supply. Calcium fluoride, commonly found in toothpaste and nature, is not used to fluoridate water.

The article also mentions that the amount of fluoride in the water supply has been reduced 3 times since it was introduced. You only reduce it if A, you find problems from it .. or B, there really is no benefit from it.

Instead, hydrofluorosilic acid, a common byproduct of the fertilizer industry, which contains trace levels of lead, arsenic and mercury, is utilized to fluoridate the water. While fluoride is a chemical naturally present in our body, there are no safe levels for lead, arsenic or mercury.

Take it as you will.

[segnosaur]

Do you even know what the term 'medical grade' is?

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.

I don't drink bottled water for one, for the simple fact bottled water is not regulated like municipal water. But it is important to note that a lot of bottled water out there comes from the same municipal source that tap water comes out of.

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.

Um, so? Are we supposed to somehow be "scared" that some fluoride compounds are 'by products'? Why should that matter? Why should we care?

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.

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".

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".

That's not my problem, usually people look at anything that is presented and then make a decision afterward.

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.

I am trying to inform myself about it. Part of the reason I made this thread.

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.

The documentary is actually pretty good.

Doubt it. Unless of course you want to define the word 'good' to mean 'spouts nonsense GostHacked happens to believe in'.

Many parts of Australia were not fluoridating their water, and the cases of cavities were about the same to those communities that were fluoridating their water.

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.

The article also mentions that the amount of fluoride in the water supply has been reduced 3 times since it was introduced. You only reduce it if A, you find problems from it .. or B, there really is no benefit from it.

Nope, you also reduce it if you can receive similar benefit using lower quantities of the same chemical.

[GostHacked]

http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html

Second chart. 2004 figures.

Comparison of countries that do (4) and do not (14) fluoridate. All lines show a decline in tooth decay among the studied group.

[segnosaur]

http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html

Second chart. 2004 figures.

Comparison of countries that do (4) and do not (14) fluoridate. All lines show a decline in tooth decay among the studied group.

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.

Edited February 15, 2011 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

Congratulations. You can point to graphs. But your understanding seems a bit lacking.

No problem, i'll do more diggin.

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.)

Sure it lacks some fine detail, but regardless of who fluoridates or not, seems like there is a steady noticable decline across the board. That is the important factor. Sure it might be a narrow focus, but I got to start somewhere to please the likes of you and others here.

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.

It may help marginally. Simply because the graph shows a decline in tooth problems in fluoridated and non-fluoridated water systems.

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.

Well, the graph is complied from WHO information.

Again, why is this the only forced medication upon the population? Forced is the key word here. You simply have no choice it seems at the moment. It's really irrelevant if it is safe or not .. maybe it's more of a moral and ethical position, but try to force any other medication on the public as a whole and see how far you get.

[segnosaur]

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.)

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.

...but regardless of who fluoridates or not, seems like there is a steady noticable decline across the board. That is the important factor.

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.

It may help marginally.

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".

Well, the graph is complied from WHO information.

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.

Again, why is this the only forced medication upon the population?

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.