Fluoride

[Pippy]

How come no one wants to argue my points?

I think Dr. Whatshisname is full of shit too. I didn't post any links, and there are not double blind studies about the negative long term effects of fluoridation of water. But my points, as always, are personal and pertinent. But Eilo and Adrian, you are just yelling at these guys who are presenting the weakest case.

Just out of curiosity, what about my points? That fluoride has to be proven effective to be allowed in the drinking water, not proven dangerous to be removed. Don't give me that old line about how the fluoride is naturally occurring either. So is nicotine in tobacco, but they still add a ton. It is the burden of proof trap you guys love so much.

Are my concerns over fluoridation unfounded? Do I have the right to drink clean water if I so choose, or am I being fooled by raving conspiracy theorists?

Talk to me, over here!

-Pip

[Eilonnwy]

How come no one wants to argue my points?

Because we've given up on your brand of kool-aid.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

How come no one wants to argue my points?

Because we've given up on your brand of kool-aid.

[Welsh cake]

You can simply get a filter, since most eliminate fluoride and other toxins from your drinking water supply.


As a health freak its not what people are putting in our water that concerns me, but what the food industry are irresponsibly placing in our everyday household products that is truly frightening once you research into the dangers of substances in the body such as Carrageenan and Aspartame in that they're being linked to various health disorders in scientific studies.

And before anyone counter argues about toxicity, tolerance and dosages to me, kindly remember it's my body, I'm entitled to have a say over what I want to put into it (don't read too deep into that).

The nonsense continues, just the other day I purchased a can with a label of "100% raw organic coconut milk" from the supermarket, fantastic. Until I read the ingredients and damn thing not only contained Carrageenan but cow's milk. Why in H. P. Lovecraft's name does coconut milk need a dangerous-in-the-body seaweed extract and fucking cow's milk added!? On that thought why is cow's milk in everything these days? I should have a choice and I don't particularly want to subject my organs continuously to products enriched with bovine hormones. Heads will roll if I evolve udders!

[Pippy]

So if you can claim victory in your argument because so and so's links were stupid, I can claim that I beat you in our argument?

I'm serious. I will keep it simple. Is Fluoride a topical medicine or is it not? Is fluoride listed as toxic waste when disposed of or not? Does the 'there's so little it can't possibly hurt' argument have anything at all to do with efficacy? And lastly, if you want to drink water with fluoride in it, should you be allowed to? If I want to drink water without fluoride added, should I be allowed too?

I understand that you don't think very highly of me, but certainly we should let the facts and opinions speak in a healthy debate, no? If you don't have anything to say to the resons I have hared concerning my concerns about fluoridation of water, say so. Don't pretend you can't being yourself down to my level or some shit.

Drink whatever you want sister,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

Pippy,

I agree with you, fluoride should be optional in drinking water.

As for your other points, Eilonnwy didn't claim victory; she asked for studies rather than websites. I claimed victory by form of a rebuttal in which I pointed out that the amounts of Fluoride in water are so low you would have to literally drown yourself to see any effect. I also revealed the *shock horror* truth that you aren't actually meant to eat toothpaste, hence the warning label. I don't know why you can't see the difference between digestion and cleaning your teeth, but it should be obvious that nothing (or at most a tiny amount) gets into your body if you brush and spit it out. Digestion is the dangerous thing here.

Does the 'there's so little it can't possibly hurt' argument have anything at all to do with efficacy?

Yes...that should be obvious. If you have a toxicity level of 1g, and you ingest 2/1000th of that (assuming we are drinking 2 litres of water a day), then the amount you have ingested isn't toxic.

As for the "old line" about fluoride being naturally occurring, well, it is. There isn't escaping that fact. The recommended fluoride level in water is 1mg per litre. Some areas (usually mountainous and volcanic) have 50mg fluoride per litre of water, and people still aren't dying from it. In fact, governments in those regions usually use defluoridation to be safe.

This isn't some big conspiracy. The levels are too low, they have warning labels on toothpaste to stop you from swallowing it, and they actively remove fluoride from water in areas where the natural level is too high. It has been proven time and time again to be beneficial for teeth, with the only adverse affect being a slight discolouration, and even that doesn't undo the level of protection given.

There are levels at which all substances should be digested. We need fat to store energy; if you eat too little, you'll get ill. If you eat too much, you'll get ill. If you eat your balanced amount, you will be fine. Same with water, same with fluoride.

[Pippy]

That makes it seems so la di da natural though. Oh well, the fluoride is a natural byproduct, and it is all sparkly and magical. If I am not mistaken, and I am known to be, most of the fluoride we put in the water is a byproduct from scrubbing out the smokestacks from aluminum smelting. Fluoridic acid. Again I may be wrong, but let us allow that most of the fluoride in the water is not natural and safe, but was listed as toxic waste and was very expensive to clean up before they figured they could sell it to the cities as a water additive.

"As for your other points, Eilonnwy didn't claim victory; she asked for studies rather than websites."
Ah, but as I pointed out, there are no double bind repeatable studies to show the harmful effects of long tern micro dosage of fluoridic acid. So we have to move on to round two, personal opinion and ideas. She can ask for something that doesn't exist, but when it is not produced cannot claim much.

"Yes...that should be obvious. If you have a toxicity level of 1g, and you ingest 2/1000th of that (assuming we are drinking 2 litres of water a day), then the amount you have ingested isn't toxic."
Ah, it isn't poisonous, yes. It won't kill you today. But it may well be toxic in the sense that it causes harm. The argument needs to be made for it efficacy, not it's minute amount. I bet you that you can't drink 9 liters in 15 minutes.

"There are levels at which all substances should be digested. We need fat to store energy; if you eat too little, you'll get ill. If you eat too much, you'll get ill. If you eat your balanced amount, you will be fine. Same with water, same with fluoride."
I don't know. That makes it seem so safe. So normal. Water, yes. Trans fatty acids holding our brain tissue together, yes. Fluoride, not as much. Saying that there is such a thing as a balanced amount of fluoride makes fluoride seem necessary to survival, like air and water. Is there a level of anti-freeze that is safe, that represents a balance? If there was anti-freeze added to the water, could I justify it with the reason that it is a minuscule amount, and such a tiny amount of anti-freeze can not do any harm. And what if you said "drinking anti-freeze is bad for me, why did you put it in the water, for what benefit?" and I replied "Silly man, there is so little it cannot be bad for you." And you say "Ummmm, the efficacy, the reason?" and I say "No, you don't understand, the amount is so small..."

-Pip

[Tiberius]

Ah, but as I pointed out, there are no double bind repeatable studies to show the harmful effects of long tern micro dosage of fluoridic acid. So we have to move on to round two, personal opinion and ideas. She can ask for something that doesn't exist, but when it is not produced cannot claim much.

The point is Pippy, that the lack of double blind studies confirming what you claim doesn't put you in a very good position. In fact, it makes your assertions ultimately baseless. Eilonnwy isn't asking for things that don't exist, but asking for things that should exist if your claims were even remotely true.

Ah, it isn't poisonous, yes. It won't kill you today. But it may well be toxic in the sense that it causes harm. The argument needs to be made for it efficacy, not it's minute amount. I bet you that you can't drink 9 liters in 15 minutes.

efficacy - capacity for producing a desired result or effect;

Just so we stand on the same page, do you agree with that definition? If so, then my point is still valid. If the capacity is has for producing an effect (in this case being deadly or causing harm) requires 1g of fluoride, and you are only consuming 2mg (if that) a day, you aren't in any danger.

No, I can't drink 9 litres in 15 minutes, and that isn't the point. I've done the math up above; you would die of water intoxication before the fluoride did anything to you. People just don't drink that amount of water, especially from the tap. People get water from all sorts of places.

I don't know. That makes it seem so safe. So normal. Water, yes. Trans fatty acids holding our brain tissue together, yes. Fluoride, not as much. Saying that there is such a thing as a balanced amount of fluoride makes fluoride seem necessary to survival, like air and water.

Fluoride isn't necessary for survival, no, but my comparison was in terms of toxicity. Water is toxic at high levels, as is fluoride. If it makes it seem so safe, it's because it is safe in those quantities. Sometimes Pippy (actually, most of the time) there isn't a conspiracy.

Is there a level of anti-freeze that is safe, that represents a balance? If there was anti-freeze added to the water, could I justify it with the reason that it is a minuscule amount, and such a tiny amount of anti-freeze can not do any harm. And what if you said "drinking anti-freeze is bad for me, why did you put it in the water, for what benefit?" and I replied "Silly man, there is so little it cannot be bad for you." And you say "Ummmm, the efficacy, the reason?" and I say "No, you don't understand, the amount is so small..."

I'm not saying that at all, and frankly it's a piss-poor attempt at a strawman. We've been over the benefits of fluoride; it strengthens your teeth, meaning less cavities and less trips to the doctor.

On no account am I saying (or have ever said) we should put any old chemical in our water as long as the amount isn't enough to do any damage. What I have said is that the fluoridation of water is beneficial for the teeth, and doesn't have any harmful effects at the levels it is used at.

Please address my actual points, not your ridiculous re-imaginings of them.

[Pippy]

Hey,

I do appreciate your candor though... Seriously.

but asking for things that should exist if your claims were even remotely true

Ah, yes. I agree, but that depends on my claim. Like, I shudder to say, 9/11. I make very, very careful claims. In this case I claimed that I am not convinced that fluoride in the water is a pragmatic idea, in the sense that it may cause more harm than good. I think that I personally do not want fluoride in my water, and I question it's use and saftey. I am not claiming that there is a conspiracy, or that people are trying to harm us with intent. I am only claiming that I have concerns, and so far some of these concerns remain unanswered. If fluoride was harmful, I suppose there would be tests to show it. But that is so muddy, and we can't clap our hands and say that fluoride must by default be safe in lieu of such...

efficacy - capacity for producing a desired result or effect;

Yes, I mean capacity to have effect. And yes, desired effect, not just any old effect, yes. I thought it was the right word

Just so we stand on the same page, do you agree with that definition? If so, then my point is still valid. If the capacity is has for producing an effect (in this case being deadly or causing harm) requires 1g of fluoride, and you are only consuming 2mg (if that) a day, you aren't in any danger.

Ah, you're misunderstanding my use of the word although you get the definition right. When I question fluorides efficacy, I am not talking about it's health concerns. I mean that if there is so little fluoride that I needn't be concerned about it harming me, what does that say towards the efficacy of it as a medicine? That it needs to be effective at oral health to be justifiable as an additive, and if it is so little an amount, what of it's ability to then have any positive effect? Efficacy of it as oral medicine, not efficacy of it not harming us. Is the point I'm trying to make clear? I'm working with sand here <taps head>

you would die of water intoxication

That's the joke. I often bet stupid people that they can't drink 9 liters of water in 15 minutes, and either they don't and I win the bet, or they do and collapse into a coma and die, so I don't have to pay them anyways. Win win.

If it makes it seem so safe, it's because it is safe in those quantities. Sometimes Pippy (actually, most of the time) there isn't a conspiracy.

Ah, again. If it's safe at those levels, can you also argue that it's effective at those levels? What if it is neither safe nor effective? Should we go through the trouble of putting it in the water then? No one said anything about a conspiracy, just stupidity and snake oil salesmen.

We've been over the benefits of fluoride; it strengthens your teeth, meaning less cavities and less trips to the doctor.

And you also mentioned dental fluorosis. There are arguments for the efficacy of fluoride, and for the detriment of it. My jury is still out. I like when they compare dental health of fluoridated versus non-fluoridated, but it doesn't take into account how our cultures eat candy all day long...

Either way, like you said, I should be in theory allowed to drink whatever I want to, and not feel forced to drink something I don't. In theory. And as long as I am quiet and polite and at least semi-reasonable about my concerns, I think they should be allowed.

Congrats on your scholastic prowess. I remain a proletariat, but you deserve commendation regardless.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

It is effective in oral health at those levels...that was also mentioned in my previous posts. Effectiveness isn't somehow linked with toxicity Pippy. A substance can be toxic at some level but effective at preventing X,Y,Z at another. If you want studies, Wikipedia links to them in a long section on the effectiveness of adding fluoride to water:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluor...ectiveness

On dental fluorosis, perhaps you should actually read up on what it is. It is the slight discolouration of the teeth, only affecting children under the age of 8. In worse cases, it can lead to dark stains and cracking, but again, only at high levels of fluoride (i.e. like the natural 50mg level).

Yes, there are arguments for the detriment of fluoride, and all of them are baseless. It hasn't been linked to cancer, nor to anything other than dental fluorosis, and even then, not in areas where the fluoride level is controlled.