Did you know Walton county's water is NOT fluoridated?

What an educated reply.

I guess when you don't have the science to refute the fact that fluoride is a very toxic substance or an answer to the words from the top dental advocate in Canada or a good response to the idea that choice it the right answer versus dictatorial government edicts, it's time to get desperate with name calling?

Oh well--

OK, OK you win. I'll quit dining on a quart of Crest each morning for breakfast. (Now I know why that third arm was beginning to grow from the side of my neck).

BTW, you may want stop touching that plastic mouse and keyboard so much. There is irrefutable, uber-scientific evidence that the chemicals used in plastic computer components lead to absolutely batty behavior.

What an educated reply.

I guess when you don't have the science to refute the fact that fluoride is a very toxic substance or an answer to the words from the top dental advocate in Canada or a good response to the idea that choice it the right answer versus dictatorial government edicts, it's time to get desperate with name calling?

Oh well--

It is an appropriate response because I will be the first to admit I am not an authority on fluoridation, but I am very good at sniffing out cuckoos.

Do you suggest that the words of 'the top dental advocate in Canada (who dubbed him with that title, anyway?) trump the opinions of the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Controls, the Surgeon General and the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research? I know, I know, probably a mass conspiracy of some sort, but you can read all about it here: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoridation_statement_sixauthorities.pdf

Furthermore, you assert that fluoride is somehow or another so darn toxic that people will be dropping like flies (or at least should be), yet the data from honest-to-goodness toxicologists (of which Dr Limeback admits he is not counted among the ranks of) fails to demonstrate any such effect. How do you explain the discrepency between your assertion and reality? Here is the journal article that suggests that you are promoting fear out of proportion to threat; it is on Medline if you want to look it up and dissect it and see where the toxicologists err. Clin Toxicol (Phila). Dec 2007;45(8):815-917

If you want to approach the issue from a cost/benefit point of view, then I am with you. For example, fluoridating water in areas where the natural levels are elevated may be a waste of money. However, playing the 'dicatorial government poisoning the people and supressing the truth' card will quickly land you in the cuckoobird camp.

;-)

It is an appropriate response because I will be the first to admit I am not an authority on fluoridation, but I am very good at sniffing out cuckoos.

Do you suggest that the words of 'the top dental advocate in Canada (who dubbed him with that title, anyway?) trump the opinions of the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Controls, the Surgeon General and the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research? I know, I know, probably a mass conspiracy of some sort, but you can read all about it here: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoridation_statement_sixauthorities.pdf

Furthermore, you assert that fluoride is somehow or another so darn toxic that people will be dropping like flies (or at least should be), yet the data from honest-to-goodness toxicologists (of which Dr Limeback admits he is not counted among the ranks of) fails to demonstrate any such effect. How do you explain the discrepency between your assertion and reality? Here is the journal article that suggests that you are promoting fear out of proportion to threat; it is on Medline if you want to look it up and dissect it and see where the toxicologists err. Clin Toxicol (Phila). Dec 2007;45(8):815-917

If you want to approach the issue from a cost/benefit point of view, then I am with you. For example, fluoridating water in areas where the natural levels are elevated may be a waste of money. However, playing the 'dicatorial government poisoning the people and supressing the truth' card will quickly land you in the cuckoobird camp.

Again, I admit that there are two very different sides of the debate. With plenty of heavy weight on both sides.

To say that the scientists that oppose fluoridation are cuckoos makes you sound like a bit of a cuckoo (I already know that I'm a bit of a cuckoo). You seem to be lashing out and name calling without taking a look at the facts on the other side of the argument. Your only answer seems to be that folks on the other side of the issue are all cuckoos.

Just remember, the global warming issue is very similar in the way the debate rages among scientists. Two sides of the story. You seem to support the side that disagrees with the "mainstream" governmental or quasi governmental entities. I guess this makes you a cuckoo too. Don't virtually all major nations support the opinion that global warming is very real, is caused by mankind and his fossil burning fuels, and that we are doomed if we don't take drastic measures to reduce carbon emissions? You disagree--are you a cuckoo.

Although there seems to be global consensus on the issue of global warming, there is no such consensus on the issue of fluoridation of water. There are many more countries that oppose fluoridation than believe in fluoridation. You are way outside the world mainstream on the global warming issue. I am among the consensus on the fluoride issue in terms of the world view. So, who is right and who is wrong. Don't know. But, I'm all for giving folks a choice. That's why I like the Walton County policy--gives everyone a choice since there is no concensus of opinion on water fluoridation.

So, who is the cuckoo on the fluoride issue.

By the way, I'm on your side on the global warming issue. Guess that makes us both cuckoos. ;-)

Again, I admit that there are two very different sides of the debate. With plenty of heavy weight on both sides.

To say that the scientists that oppose fluoridation are cuckoos makes you sound like a bit of a cuckoo (I already know that I'm a bit of a cuckoo). You seem to be lashing out and name calling without taking a look at the facts on the other side of the argument. Your only answer seems to be that folks on the other side of the issue are all cuckoos.

Just remember, the global warming issue is very similar in the way the debate rages among scientists. Two sides of the story. You seem to support the side that disagrees with the "mainstream" governmental or quasi governmental entities. I guess this makes you a cuckoo too. Don't virtually all major nations support the opinion that global warming is very real, is caused by mankind and his fossil burning fuels, and that we are doomed if we don't take drastic measures to reduce carbon emissions? You disagree--are you a cuckoo.

Although there seems to be global consensus on the issue of global warming, there is no such consensus on the issue of fluoridation of water. There are many more countries that oppose fluoridation than believe in fluoridation.

So, who is the cuckoo

...it's me! I don't know why I keeping hitting this thread about fluorinated water!

...it's me! I don't know why I keeping hitting this thread about fluorinated water!

Thanks for joining the cuckoos nest with me and skunk.

Thanks for joining the cuckoos nest with me and skunk.

...I'm bringing my bottled water.

Uh-oh, I am late....again. But, when I did receive flouride treatments at the dentist (don't any longer), I was not supposed to swallow?????

Maybe this point has already been covered.......oh well, sorry I'm late!

Cheers~~~~~~~~

...I'm bringing my bottled water.

Hope it's not a plastic bottle - those chemicals get into your water and are bad for you don't ya know!

Lynnie - you weren't supposed to swallow the flouride - different rules ;-).

Hope it's not a plastic bottle - those chemicals get into your water and are bad for you don't ya know!

Lynnie - you weren't supposed to swallow the flouride - different rules ;-).

Why do you say different rules? That just proves my point--you don't swallow the fluoride rinse or the fluoridated toothpaste for the plain and simple fact that fluoride is very toxic even in small doses.

Because I was making a joke. :roll:

It is an appropriate response because I will be the first to admit I am not an authority on fluoridation, but I am very good at sniffing out cuckoos.

Do you suggest that the words of 'the top dental advocate in Canada (who dubbed him with that title, anyway?) trump the opinions of the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Controls, the Surgeon General and the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research? I know, I know, probably a mass conspiracy of some sort, but you can read all about it here: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoridation_statement_sixauthorities.pdf

Furthermore, you assert that fluoride is somehow or another so darn toxic that people will be dropping like flies (or at least should be), yet the data from honest-to-goodness toxicologists (of which Dr Limeback admits he is not counted among the ranks of) fails to demonstrate any such effect. How do you explain the discrepency between your assertion and reality? Here is the journal article that suggests that you are promoting fear out of proportion to threat; it is on Medline if you want to look it up and dissect it and see where the toxicologists err. Clin Toxicol (Phila). Dec 2007;45(8):815-917

If you want to approach the issue from a cost/benefit point of view, then I am with you. For example, fluoridating water in areas where the natural levels are elevated may be a waste of money. However, playing the 'dicatorial government poisoning the people and supressing the truth' card will quickly land you in the cuckoobird camp.

Here is a link to a really good scientific reference for you--comes from the union representing 1500 scientists in the EPA. They want to ban fluoridation of water--


www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

Again, two sides to every story. You should study up on the other side before rushing to judgement.

Hope it's not a plastic bottle - those chemicals get into your water and are bad for you don't ya know!

Lynnie - you weren't supposed to swallow the flouride - different rules ;-).

Yep, it's plastic. Love a big ol' drink of bottled water after a cigarette.

Here is a link to a really good scientific reference for you--comes from the union representing 1500 scientists in the EPA. They want to ban fluoridation of water--

NTEU 280 Fluoride

Again, two sides to every story. You should study up on the other side before rushing to judgement.

At the risk of this bloated horse popping from another beating, I will take the bait.

Most of the neurotoxicity studies cited by this union release cite animal studies. Animal toxicology studies always have to be taken with a grain of salt as observed toxic effects that are usually induced by administering amounts of a substance well above and beyond normal human intake. Saccharin is a good example-those little pink envelopes on restaurant tables have been telling us that our iced tea has been known to cause cancer in lab rats, yet Sweet & Low (and knockoffs) has been enjoyed for at least 30 years or so and our cancer rates have actually fallen. True, there is a human study cited from China that concludes that a cohort of non-fluoridated Chinese kids enjoyed a 5-10 IQ point advantage over a fluoridated group of peers. My concern with this being a decent study would be controlling for a confounding variable such as lead exposure, a metal that the Chinese seem fond of using in all manner of children's goods. If a similar reproducible study could be performed in a western country I would be more impressed, but my guess is that one does not exist. It would be easy and cheap-all one would need to do is administer an IQ test to matched cohorts in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas here in the Florida panhandle. If one of us was motivated enough to get a grant, we could author this study.

The union's next concern is a link between fluoridation and cancer. Again, they provide evidence buttressed by animal studies (and even more tenuous cellular studies). Your source asserts that The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. I provide this study which has the power of case-control design behind it that contradicts the union's citations, and in fact suggests municipal fluoridation may have a protective effect against male osteosarcoma development! Fluoride exposure and childhood osteosarcoma: a case-control study. -- Gelberg et al. 85 (12): 1678 -- American Journal of Public Health.

Furthermore, the union asserts that no double-blind studies exist that demonstrate municipal fluoridation's benefit in cavity prevention. Maybe or maybe not, but I am not sure how a study of this nature would be possible today as fluoride is ubiquitous in dental hygiene products and beverages prepared in fluoridated municipalities. As I understand it, the best evidence arguing for water fluoridation is retrospective in nature, drawn from the earliest days of water fluoridation where clear benefits were demonstrated.

It should be clear that we could go around, and around, and then around some more with this debate. Here are my major points:

Fluoride, when added to drinking water has demonstrable economic and health benefits; evidence exists to support these assertions. Clark DC, Hann HJ, Williamson MF, Berkowitz J. Effects of lifelong consumption of fluoridated water or use of fluoride supplements on dental caries prevalence. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1995;23:20--4. and Burt BA, ed. Proceedings for the workshop: Cost-effectiveness of caries prevention in dental public health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 17--19, 1989. J Public Health Dent 1989;49(special issue):331--7.

There is no compelling evidence that fluoride, when used in the manner intended, is dangerous. Furthermore, acute fluoride toxicity is a real but profoundly rare phenomenon. Nor is there any compelling evidence that water fluoridation is a public health menace;arguments to the contrary grow weaker with every passing year as exposure to fluoridated water increases without a concurrent decline in well-being.

I will refrain from beating the dead horse further.

...it's me! I don't know why I keeping hitting this thread about fluorinated water!

Once again you are totally right and once again your subtle brillance displays itself. However, Skunky is anything but a cuckoo. In the same vein, I'm not sure about Fisher at all.

At the risk of this bloated horse popping from another beating, I will take the bait.

Most of the neurotoxicity studies cited by this union release cite animal studies. Animal toxicology studies always have to be taken with a grain of salt as observed toxic effects that are usually induced by administering amounts of a substance well above and beyond normal human intake. Saccharin is a good example-those little pink envelopes on restaurant tables have been telling us that our iced tea has been known to cause cancer in lab rats, yet Sweet & Low (and knockoffs) has been enjoyed for at least 30 years or so and our cancer rates have actually fallen. True, there is a human study cited from China that concludes that a cohort of non-fluoridated Chinese kids enjoyed a 5-10 IQ point advantage over a fluoridated group of peers. My concern with this being a decent study would be controlling for a confounding variable such as lead exposure, a metal that the Chinese seem fond of using in all manner of children's goods. If a similar reproducible study could be performed in a western country I would be more impressed, but my guess is that one does not exist. It would be easy and cheap-all one would need to do is administer an IQ test to matched cohorts in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas here in the Florida panhandle. If one of us was motivated enough to get a grant, we could author this study.

The union's next concern is a link between fluoridation and cancer. Again, they provide evidence buttressed by animal studies (and even more tenuous cellular studies). Your source asserts that The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. I provide this study which has the power of case-control design behind it that contradicts the union's citations, and in fact suggests municipal fluoridation may have a protective effect against male osteosarcoma development! Fluoride exposure and childhood osteosarcoma: a case-control study. -- Gelberg et al. 85 (12): 1678 -- American Journal of Public Health.

Furthermore, the union asserts that no double-blind studies exist that demonstrate municipal fluoridation's benefit in cavity prevention. Maybe or maybe not, but I am not sure how a study of this nature would be possible today as fluoride is ubiquitous in dental hygiene products and beverages prepared in fluoridated municipalities. As I understand it, the best evidence arguing for water fluoridation is retrospective in nature, drawn from the earliest days of water fluoridation where clear benefits were demonstrated.

It should be clear that we could go around, and around, and then around some more with this debate. Here are my major points:

Fluoride, when added to drinking water has demonstrable economic and health benefits; evidence exists to support these assertions. Clark DC, Hann HJ, Williamson MF, Berkowitz J. Effects of lifelong consumption of fluoridated water or use of fluoride supplements on dental caries prevalence. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1995;23:20--4. and Burt BA, ed. Proceedings for the workshop: Cost-effectiveness of caries prevention in dental public health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 17--19, 1989. J Public Health Dent 1989;49(special issue):331--7.

There is no compelling evidence that fluoride, when used in the manner intended, is dangerous. Furthermore, acute fluoride toxicity is a real but profoundly rare phenomenon. Nor is there any compelling evidence that water fluoridation is a public health menace;arguments to the contrary grow weaker with every passing year as exposure to fluoridated water increases without a concurrent decline in well-being.

I will refrain from beating the dead horse further.

Wait, you didn't address your contrarian views on global warming that go against the grain of all the major nations in the world. The whole scientific community seems to support the idea of global warming, yet you disagree (cuckoo???). On the other hand, more countries around the world AVOID fluoridation of their water supplies due to the concerns over long term health consequences. Yet, you believe that these countries and their health authorities cannot be right.

In addition, regardless of the studies provided by the union, I gotta go with a posse of educated, well trained scientists versus an internet researcher when choosing sides on a scientific issue.

Have you done any research on the horrific, crippling and very well documented cases of skeletal fluorosis that occur in India, China and elsewhere when naturally fluoridated water have levels that are only 3 to 5 times the levels allowed in drinking water by the EPA. It doesn't take much more than is in our water supply in the US to cause horrific, very visible bodily damage in a relatively short period of time. Drinking lower levels for longer periods of time might just be detrimental too but the signs just won't be so outwardly visible--maybe??

There are no double blind studies showing the benefits or long term detriments of fluoridation. However, most civilized countries won't put this poison in their water. Huh??? What's up with that???

Isn't it interesting that in the US rates of arthritis and other muscular skeletal problems are on the rise (fluoride is especially hard on soft tissues) and the rate of thyroid related problems is on the rise too (fluoride can alter thyroid function). Coincidence??? Maybe, maybe not.

Instead of quoting a few studies (I can do the same)--why not address the central question several have raised. What about choice? Why fluoridate EVERYONES water when individuals can make the choice themselves to use fluoride if their water is not fluoridated?

Seems pretty simple. So, simple that even a cuckoo can understand it.;-)



Study discussing role of fluoride in thyroid dysfunction (lots more where this came from)--

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Reference to skeletal fluorosis, joint and muscle pains brought on by "light" fluorosis and reference to fluoride accumulation in the body (many more where this came from)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7137176?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Wait, you didn't address your contrarian views on global warming that go against the grain of all the major nations in the world. The whole scientific community seems to support the idea of global warming, yet you disagree (cuckoo???). On the other hand, more countries around the world AVOID fluoridation of their water supplies due to the concerns over long term health consequences. Yet, you believe that these countries and their health authorities cannot be right.

In addition, regardless of the studies provided by the union, I gotta go with a posse of educated, well trained scientists versus an internet researcher when choosing sides on a scientific issue.

Have you done any research on the horrific, crippling and very well documented cases of skeletal fluorosis that occur in India, China and elsewhere when naturally fluoridated water have levels that are only 3 to 5 times the levels allowed in drinking water by the EPA. It doesn't take much more than is in our water supply in the US to cause horrific, very visible bodily damage in a relatively short period of time. Drinking lower levels for longer periods of time might just be detrimental too but the signs just won't be so outwardly visible--maybe??

There are no double blind studies showing the benefits or long term detriments of fluoridation. However, most civilized countries won't put this poison in their water. Huh??? What's up with that???

Isn't it interesting that in the US rates of arthritis and other muscular skeletal problems are on the rise (fluoride is especially hard on soft tissues) and the rate of thyroid related problems is on the rise too (fluoride can alter thyroid function). Coincidence??? Maybe, maybe not.

Instead of quoting a few studies (I can do the same)--why not address the central question several have raised. What about choice? Why fluoridate EVERYONES water when individuals can make the choice themselves to use fluoride if their water is not fluoridated?

Seems pretty simple. So, simple that even a cuckoo can understand it.;-)

As much as I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into this mess again, here I go...

Regarding the red herring of global warming-I don't agree with the premise that 'the whole scientific community seems to support the idea of global warming'. I assume you mean the theory of 'man made global warming'. Not all scientists agree with the theory. I think you might read me wrong-I am not sure whether or not man is responsible for elevated temps. I seriously doubt it, and if we do, I have a feeling that the implications are far less serious than the doomsday prophets have predicted. Indeed, even the grand poobah of the movement has edited his (in)famous powerpoint presentation to tone down some of the apocalyptic insinuations of where the planet might be headed. What is true regarding your points about fluoride holds for the ardent proponents of global warming theory; Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. The global warming crowd isn't exactly rolling out damning evidence that the Earth is doing anything it hasn't done hundreds of times in the past. At any rate, back to fluoride...

I gotta go with a posse of educated, well trained scientists versus an internet researcher when choosing sides on a scientific issue. I agree 100%, and that is why my arguments, which are rooted in hard data and not union memos or fearmongering websites, ring true.

Have you done any research on the horrific, crippling and very well documented cases of skeletal fluorosis that occur in India, China and elsewhere when naturally fluoridated water have levels that are only 3 to 5 times the levels allowed in drinking water by the EPA. No, and what does this have to do with anything? 3 to 5 times EPA levels means 3 to 5 times EPA levels. Nobody is advocating such a level of fluoridation, and municipal water is closely monitored, so it isn't even a relevant point!

Drinking lower levels for longer periods of time might just be detrimental too but the signs just won't be so outwardly visible--maybe?? What signs are you waiting for? Our water has been routinely fluoridated and we have increased our usage of fluoride greatly over the last 50 to 60 years and no time bomb has yet to explode. How many generations have to pass before you can accept that if cause and effect were bound to occur, it would have manifested by now?

There are no double blind studies showing the benefits or long term detriments of fluoridation. How would you design a double blind study? As I have already told you, fluoride is ubiquitous and retrospective studies are probably the best tool you would have to determine risks and benefits. These studies already exist;please see the final two citations in my last post.

most civilized countries won't put this poison in their water. Huh??? What's up with that??? Huh??? is right!

Isn't it interesting that in the US rates of arthritis and other muscular skeletal problems are on the rise (fluoride is especially hard on soft tissues) and the rate of thyroid related problems is on the rise too (fluoride can alter thyroid function). Coincidence??? Maybe, maybe not. Almost assuredly a coincidence. I think the explanation lies in the fact that we are enjoying longer lifespans and as a result, our bones, joints and organs tend to crap out at some point.

What about choice? Why fluoridate EVERYONES water when individuals can make the choice themselves to use fluoride if their water is not fluoridated? Who is making you drink fluoridated water? The reality here is the same as it is in other areas of public health, such as vaccination, that is, sound policy that is proven to benefit the public at large sometimes trumps the wishes of the minority, no matter how vocal.

Remember, YOU are making the exceptional claims regarding fluoride, therefore, the burden of providing EXCEPTIONAL evidence is on YOU and those of like mind. I have yet to see anything other than theories and 'what ifs' being provided to bolster your arguments, and there is nothing exceptional about that.

Lets see here--

1. Dental fluorosis is very prevalent in children in the US--

Prevalence of Enamel Fluorosis Among 12-19 Year-Olds, U.S., 1999-2004

2. So, what’s the cause of dental fluorosis—
From WHO—

Fluorosis
The disease and how it affects people
Ingestion of excess fluoride, most commonly in drinking-water, can cause fluorosis which affects the teeth and bones. Moderate amounts (comment-defined below as 1.5 ppm) lead to dental effects, but long-term ingestion of large amounts (comment--ie: above 1.5 ppm) can lead to potentially severe skeletal problems. (comment--did you know the EPA says up to 4 ppm is acceptable?)...

Fluorosis is caused by excessive intake of fluoride. The dental effects of fluorosis develop much earlier than the skeletal effects in people exposed to large amounts of fluoride (comment--so dental fluorosis preceds skeletal fluorosis--hmmm). Clinical dental fluorosis is characterized by staining and pitting of the teeth. In more severe cases all the enamel may be damaged.

Chronic high-level exposure (comment--remember moderate levels are 1.5 ppm and EPA allows up to 4 ppm) to fluoride can lead to skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone progressively over many years. The early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, include stiffness and pain in the joints (comment--sounds a lot like arthritis symptoms to me). In severe cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify, with resulting impairment of muscles and pain.

Moderate-level chronic exposure(remember 1.5 ppm is moderate and EPA allows up to 4 ppm) is more common. People affected by fluorosis are often exposed to multiple sources of fluoride, such as in food, water, air (due to gaseous industrial waste), and excessive use of toothpaste. However, drinking water is typically the most significant source.

Or, read this study linked from the CDC website. It talks in depth about both the purported benefits of fluoridation AND the risks. A very balanced report. I could highlight big problems with fluoride from this report and you could highlight the benefits for the teeth. It talks about how fluoride can prevent dental caries, but it also discusses the potential risks of fluoride on the reproductive system, the skeletal system, the immune system, and many other bodily systems.

Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride

Or, this study from India that states that fluorosis can occur in areas where the fluoride levels in water are 1 ppm (fluoridation in the US ranges from .7 to 4 ppm).

Antioxidant Defense System and Lipid Peroxidation in Patients with Skeletal Fluorosis and in Fluoride-Intoxicated Rabbits -- Reddy et al. 72 (2): 363 -- Toxicological Sciences

An in depth review of the facts clearly shows that fluoride is dangerous in even the small amounts people ingest through fluoridated water.

So, lets see. Skunk says fluoridate because it benefits the teeth. Fish says be very, very careful because fluoride is highly toxic and can potentially have detrimental effects on many, many critical bodily functions (backed up by overwhelming science).

Risk the immune system, skeletal system, reproductive system, etc, etc to POTENTIALLY benefit the teeth. I think not.

I don’t mind continuing the debate. However, the good news is that the authority that matters most in this case is Walton County. Fortunately, these folks have looked at the risk/reward and don't agree with Skunk either.;-)

I gotta go with a posse of educated, well trained scientists versus an internet researcher when choosing sides on a scientific issue. I agree 100%, and that is why my arguments, which are rooted in hard data and not union memos or fearmongering websites, ring true. I haven't referenced any of those fearmongering websites. Only hard facts regarding the toxicity of fluoride.

Have you done any research on the horrific, crippling and very well documented cases of skeletal fluorosis that occur in India, China and elsewhere when naturally fluoridated water have levels that are only 3 to 5 times the levels allowed in drinking water by the EPA. No, and what does this have to do with anything? 3 to 5 times EPA levels means 3 to 5 times EPA levels. Nobody is advocating such a level of fluoridation, and municipal water is closely monitored, so it isn't even a relevant point! Sure it is. If you are willing to take a few moments to do the research into the SCIENTIFIC data that is available--some of which I reference in another post.

Drinking lower levels for longer periods of time might just be detrimental too but the signs just won't be so outwardly visible--maybe?? What signs are you waiting for? Our water has been routinely fluoridated and we have increased our usage of fluoride greatly over the last 50 to 60 years and no time bomb has yet to explode. How many generations have to pass before you can accept that if cause and effect were bound to occur, it would have manifested by now? Again, look into the scientific data--not off the wall websites--and you will find that fluoride accumulates in the bones and soft tissues over time. It can cause arthritic like symptoms outside full blown skeletal fluorosis. Again, soft tissue disease is almost an epidemic in this country. I see a POTENTIAL connection to fluoride.

There are no double blind studies showing the benefits or long term detriments of fluoridation. How would you design a double blind study? As I have already told you, fluoride is ubiquitous and retrospective studies are probably the best tool you would have to determine risks and benefits. These studies already exist;please see the final two citations in my last post.

Please check out my studies that show the opposite. Studies done by reputable scientists just like the ones that prepared yours.

most civilized countries won't put this poison in their water. Huh??? What's up with that??? Huh??? is right!

Wow, great response. They don't fluoridate because it is risky.

Isn't it interesting that in the US rates of arthritis and other muscular skeletal problems are on the rise (fluoride is especially hard on soft tissues) and the rate of thyroid related problems is on the rise too (fluoride can alter thyroid function). Coincidence??? Maybe, maybe not. Almost assuredly a coincidence. I think the explanation lies in the fact that we are enjoying longer lifespans and as a result, our bones, joints and organs tend to crap out at some point.

Maybe, maybe not.

What about choice? Why fluoridate EVERYONES water when individuals can make the choice themselves to use fluoride if their water is not fluoridated? Who is making you drink fluoridated water? The reality here is the same as it is in other areas of public health, such as vaccination, that is, sound policy that is proven to benefit the public at large sometimes trumps the wishes of the minority, no matter how vocal.

Remember, YOU are making the exceptional claims regarding fluoride, therefore, the burden of providing EXCEPTIONAL evidence is on YOU and those of like mind. I have yet to see anything other than theories and 'what ifs' being provided to bolster your arguments, and there is nothing exceptional about that.

I am making no exceptional claims. Just referencing scientific facts.

I'm more concerned about the large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide in our water.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4"]YouTube - Banning DiHydrogen Monoxide - Penn and Teller[/ame]

I'm more concerned about the large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide in our water.

YouTube - Banning DiHydrogen Monoxide - Penn and Teller

I remember this episode! The BEST show on TV!

where's pizzaeater?

I just have to say that I've had an absolute blast watching this thread about fluoridated water; more than I would have ever dreamed. Even more exciting than actually brushing my teeth. Thanks to all of you who have keep me in stitches with your uber-serious commentary on the evils of municipal water.

Excellent stuff roll out over here. Thanks all. Posted out good info.

------------------
Thanks
Alex
[FONT=&quot]Encourages others to share start-up stories lessons by deleted[/FONT]

Anybody else smell a spammer?

Luckily for us, we are on an artisan well.