If fluoride is good for your teeth, or good for you at all...

According to various medical researches from 1950s and 1960s, adding fluorine to water lowered dental caries by 50%. But because possible negative effect to human body it was canceled in 1980s in my country. Also was stopped adding extra florides to salt for same reason. Now we have fluorides in toothpasts only.

"

According to various medical researches from 1950s and 1960s, adding fluorine to water lowered dental caries by 50%. But because possible negative effect to human body it was canceled in 1980s in my country. Also was stopped adding extra florides to salt for same reason. Now we have fluorides in toothpasts only.

Yeah as it turns out, fluoride is great for tooth strengthening but sucks for bone metabolism. You want some but not a lot. Better to keep your daily need of fluoride salts focused on your teeth.

Before water fluoride, most people simply lost most of their teeth throughout their twenties, starting from the rear forward, as it's the rear teeth which suffer the worst decay. Tooth powders and pastes had fluoride by then, but the problem starts in early childhood when many kids haven't developed good habits and often skip brushing between meals, or fake it because toothpaste tastes harsh. (It should - you want to not make it so appealing to kids that they'll swallow it)

Putting the fluoride directly into the water supply ensured that kids' teeth would have a constant low level source of remineralization whatever their brushing behaviours. This also applied to the teeth of babies still forming inside the gum, and their permanent teeth when those began to form and grow in.

Only after a generation or so did they discover that the amount needed must be balanced against the weakening effect Fluoride ion has on bone growth and repair. There are in fact areas of the world where the water and soil have a strong fluoride salt content naturally, and the folks living there have learned ways to soften their water and tone it down a bit for the sake of their bones and kidneys. Also it tastes bad and some people are sensitive to the taste.

It's still an essential nutrient, but you don't need high levels of systemic fluoride ion to achieve the intended result. Just like cobalt, is essential for making vitamin B12 for forming blood cells, but you aren't going to go around with a tube of Cobalt Blue paint in your pocket, licking bright blue gobs of the nozzle for your health.

"

xMustard wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

xMustard wrote:

i agree, there is plenty of data available

I hope you can comprehend it. I have my doubts.

Also still didn't answer my question. Perhaps you didnt comprehend it? Or ignored it on purpose?

If Fluoride is indeed not beneficial, or harmful as it appears you believe to some degree, why has it been approved and placed in our drinking water?

im not required to answer your questions. nor does it invalidate my opinion in any way. not that i need my opinion validated by anyone else.

but by all means, because i disagree with you make quips at my intelligence.

Sure, but, if you're not going to answer the questions and actually participate in a discussion, why say anything at all?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

xMustard, the problem with your take of the phrase "truth fears no investigation" — a phrase I happen to agree with — is that you are personifying truth. No one is truth; no group of people are truth. Humans fear an investigation that goes nowhere, because an investigation that goes nowhere consumes valuable time.

And they fear an investigation that DOES go somewhere, because they're never going to have enough surplus time to get by without faith in others who economically specialize in knowing. An economy might tolerate a lack of faith in some plumbers, but shit literally goes sideways if they lose faith in all plumbers — same deal with scholars. Inevitably, the result of people — not a person, but people —realizing their trust has been betrayed is not to stop trusting, but to trust someone else.

You act as if the meaning of life is to know; if so, then doubt without end is a rational response to the problem of inductive reasoning. But knowing is not the meaning of life.

Well, if we're going to revive this thread by responding to stuff written 4 days ago or so, I'll respond to ScrotieMcB.

EXACTLY! Well said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQUkQ2f9QQ


https://www.amazon.ca/Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+fluoride+deception&qid=1591978992&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/Case-against-Fluoride-Hazardous-Drinking-ebook/dp/B005OCTIZ2/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=the+fluoride+deception&qid=1591978992&sr=8-2

"

xMustard wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQUkQ2f9QQ

At 4:32 there is a quote displayed in text on the screen:
"The current trend towards complete removal of fluoride from water and food may need some reversal." — Gerald Cox, 1939

In the context of 1939 America, I strongly agree. The prevailing attitude at the time was to treat fluoride entirely as a pollutant, because in the context of aluminum factories, that's what they were. As has been said numerous times in this thread, a small amount of fluoride ingested via food and water is both
entirely natural and beneficial to humans, while large amounts are poisonous. Considering that the trend at the time was arguably towards fluoride levels lower than the fluoride levels if naturally occurring streams and produce, I don't think Cox's statement was in any way unreasonable. It didn't even go so far as to suggest the addition of fluoride into drinking water or food — merely to limit the removal.

---

Later on, the video shows an old clip of Dr. Harold Hodge at a chalkboard saying "fluoride is safe at one part per million." This is a true statement.

"

xMustard wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQUkQ2f9QQ


https://www.amazon.ca/Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+fluoride+deception&qid=1591978992&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/Case-against-Fluoride-Hazardous-Drinking-ebook/dp/B005OCTIZ2/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=the+fluoride+deception&qid=1591978992&sr=8-2

youtube and some random books that are made for profit purposes aren't reliable sources of information

Don't eat fluoride tooth paste.

Okay, this thread can end now. You're welcome. :-)

https://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

I'm not against fluoride in water but wanted to see some arguments against it.

"

6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride deficiency.”(NRC 1993; Institute of Medicine 1997, NRC 2006). Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). In combination with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with signals from growth factors, hormones and neurotransmitters (Strunecka & Patocka 1999; Li 2003). More and more studies indicate that fluoride can interfere with biochemistry in fundamental ways (Barbier 2010).

I haven't read them all.

"

"

6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride deficiency.”(NRC 1993; Institute of Medicine 1997, NRC 2006). Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). In combination with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with signals from growth factors, hormones and neurotransmitters (Strunecka & Patocka 1999; Li 2003). More and more studies indicate that fluoride can interfere with biochemistry in fundamental ways (Barbier 2010).

First off, there is a point there that is at worst false and at best very misleading, to which I added bold. There is a naturally occurring, beneficial chemical process of teeth hardening that does require fluoride. As far as I know, there is only that one process, but it's easily proven by taking a couple of human teeth that have been removed (e.g. a child's "tooth fairy" teeth) and exposing one to fluoride tooth paste for a significant time, then comparing the teeth. You can (and, if you have young children, should) try this at home.

Now technically, it's a chemical process, not a biological one. Regardless of whether the core of a tooth is alive or dead, its enamel is not technically living matter, not is the fluoride. Hence why I can't quite say the bolded sentence is an outright lie... but it is misleading as all hell.

Fluoride occurs naturally in small amounts. Even cavemen would consume fluoride, albeit not at the level common to modern life. I strongly believe that fluoride toothpaste is a good hygiene product. Water fluoridation is a bit more contentious, as overfluoridation of something we drink instead of spitting out is inherently more dangerous. I believe that our water supply should aim to have NATURAL fluoridation levels — that is, the same levels of fluoride you'd find in a clean mountain stream, untainted by industrial pollutants. The level of fluoride in such a stream is NOT zero, and if water treatment removes all fluoride from the water at some point in the process, I do think fluoride should be re-added in order to achieve natural levels.

You should never swallow fluoride toothpaste, and the water supply should probably not be quite as fluoridated as it is, so in a way I'm to the xMustard side of center on this issue. But I'm nowhere near the extreme, of course. I mean, fluoride might technically be a toxin, but so is alcohol. Our livers are more than capable of dealing with reasonable levels of either. Now excuse me while I grab a beer.