Flouridation: Calgary reaps what the crazies sowed

[krypton iodine sulfur]

A lot of the country's population has unfluoridated water, though I am not entirely certain why. I think part of it comes down to apathy toward the issue from much of the population, and a disinterest in municipal politics in general. The water supply was fluoridated when I was a kid, but when I moved across the country, I never thought about it. I only recently learned that most of my province's drinking water is not fluoridated. Canadian health organizations do support fluoridation, but it's a municipal issue. Perhaps if public health insurance covered non-emergency dental, the province would have a more vested interest in the matter.

 

[arkirk]

You don't know what you are talking about fella.

Really? I am not the one whose posts are based on simple failures of reason and logic.

I worked for years in the desert removing toxic quantities of fluoride from well water for private well owners with solar distillers.

That's nice. Completely irrelevant to the topic of fluoridation of municipal water supplies, but nice.

I got variances for dual system use of over mineralized water from those wells.

Lovely. I am sure your parents would be proud of you. But that STILL has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Fluoride is a toxic material in very low concentrations.

Yes. And it is non-toxic at even lower concentrations. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why the germs that cause caries are dying and the teeth are surviving...

OK, so you don't know the mechanism by which fluoride reduces caries, and think it is to do with killing bacteria. Well, I guess that explains why you are so convinced of your completely false beliefs on the topic. FYI, fluoride works by preventing (and in some cases reversing) the demineralisation of tooth enamel. It doesn't kill mouth bacteria at the concentrations used.

also if it doesn't have other effects on bone and if it causes tooth mottling in concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.

Why would we care what happens at more than twice the recommended level? It's completely irrelevant

You really need to study fluoride before you talk about it.

That's good advice, and you should listen to it.

Being old doesn't make you knowledgeable; having tangential experience of a chemical in a completely different context doesn't make you knowledgeable. Even deriding the knowledge of people who you don't know jack-shit about, doesn't make you knowledgeable. Knowing stuff makes you knowledgeable. You should give it a try.

Bilby:
You sure are one rude person. I owe you nothing. You seem to speak with the authority of a living God. Sorry I just don't believe you are anything but a troll. My experience was directly in treating water for human consumption..exactly the same context. Try not be act like such a smart ass. Experience makes you knowledgable and that I have. What is your claim to fame...being an Aussie? . Calling someone a crazy doesn't exactly qualify you for any special consideration. I happen to have a number of books on the toxic qualities of fluoride and was involved in a water district study on the effects of fluoride on teeth. In case you don't know natural sources of water can contain fluoride. The town I lived near had a variance for fluoride up to 2 mg/L and the water disctrict tried to resist reducing the level. They finally were forced to do so. Where I lived east of that town fluoride levels in well water ran between 8 and 21 mg/L. I did a lot of water testing and saw a lot of bad teeth. Fluoride mottles teeth even at quite low concentrations. My experience found Fluoride in a public health context as a negative. I am aware that fluoride actually replaces natural tooth material and causes a characteristic mottling. I also sold a number of solar water distillers. Fluoride is Fluoride whether it is added or naturally occurring. Why don't you just bugger off?

 

[bilby]

Really? I am not the one whose posts are based on simple failures of reason and logic.

I worked for years in the desert removing toxic quantities of fluoride from well water for private well owners with solar distillers.

That's nice. Completely irrelevant to the topic of fluoridation of municipal water supplies, but nice.

I got variances for dual system use of over mineralized water from those wells.

Lovely. I am sure your parents would be proud of you. But that STILL has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Fluoride is a toxic material in very low concentrations.

Yes. And it is non-toxic at even lower concentrations. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why the germs that cause caries are dying and the teeth are surviving...

OK, so you don't know the mechanism by which fluoride reduces caries, and think it is to do with killing bacteria. Well, I guess that explains why you are so convinced of your completely false beliefs on the topic. FYI, fluoride works by preventing (and in some cases reversing) the demineralisation of tooth enamel. It doesn't kill mouth bacteria at the concentrations used.

also if it doesn't have other effects on bone and if it causes tooth mottling in concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.

Why would we care what happens at more than twice the recommended level? It's completely irrelevant

You really need to study fluoride before you talk about it.

That's good advice, and you should listen to it.

Being old doesn't make you knowledgeable; having tangential experience of a chemical in a completely different context doesn't make you knowledgeable. Even deriding the knowledge of people who you don't know jack-shit about, doesn't make you knowledgeable. Knowing stuff makes you knowledgeable. You should give it a try.

Bilby:
You sure are one rude person.

Not really. Unless you consider people pointing out the deep flaws in poorly evidenced, fallacy and falsehood ridden arguments to be 'rude', in which case, the world needs more rude people.

I owe you nothing.

That's true; were you under the impression that somebody thought you did owe me something?

You seem to speak with the authority of a living God.

Well it's very kind of you to say so, but humility requires that I point out that this isn't actually the case - I am just somebody who happens to know what he is talking about. That's not a trait limited to Gods; Indeed, you could achieve the same status yourself, if you bothered to learn.

Sorry I just don't believe you are anything but a troll.

Your beliefs are of no consequence. Do you accuse anyone who corrects your errors of being a troll? If so, it is no wonder that you have learned so little.

My experience was directly in treating water for human consumption..exactly the same context.

Except you were taking fluoride OUT of a supply that had too much, which is the exact opposite of adding the right amount to a supply that has too little; And you appear to think that toxicity is a property of a given compound, and unrelated to dose - which is simply fundamentally wrong.

Try not be act like such a smart ass.

Try not to be so fundamentally wrong about stuff then. If your knowledge is erroneous, and/or your reasoning flawed - as it is in this case - you can't expect not to be called on it.

Experience makes you knowledgable and that I have.

No, learning makes you knowledgeable. Experience just makes you old. You can do both at once, but it doesn't always happen that way.

What is your claim to fame...being an Aussie?

Well, it is a great source of pride to me, but there are over 24 million of us now, so it doesn't really make me famous. .

I don't have any claim to fame. I know stuff, but it's all in the public domain, so there is nothing (other than the false belief that you already know it) to stop you, or anybody else, from doing the same.

Calling someone a crazy doesn't exactly qualify you for any special consideration.

Who called anyone crazy? I pointed out that your statements are false, and that your logic and reasoning is poor. That doesn't make you crazy - just misinformed and bad at reasoning.

I happen to have a number of books on the toxic qualities of fluoride and was involved in a water district study on the effects of fluoride on teeth.

I have books on the Loch Ness monster. But having books doesn't make you knowledgeable. Learning makes you knowledgeable. You can learn from books, but it isn't automatic; and it requires the application of reason and logic to filter out the dross from the facts.

In case you don't know natural sources of water can contain fluoride.

No shit, Sherlock.

The town I lived near had a variance for fluoride up to 2 mg/L and the water disctrict tried to resist reducing the level.

Which has, once again, NOTHING to do with whether adding fluoride to water which contains less than the recommended 0.7mg/L is or is not a good thing. You really need to learn to think in straight lines, and stop bringing in complete irrelevancies as though they had something to do with the point.

They finally were forced to do so.

Good. Still irrelevant to the topic being discussed, though.

Where I lived east of that town fluoride levels in well water ran between 8 and 21 mg/L.

That's quite a lot. They should reduce that to around 0.7mg/L, if possible.

I did a lot of water testing and saw a lot of bad teeth.

I am not at all surprised. That has fuck all to do with the question of whether fluoride should be added to water supplies that don't have enough, though.

I also sold a number of solar water distillers.

Good for you. Still, if you will excuse my French, that has fuck 'tout' to do with the topic under discussion.

Fluoride is Fluoride whether it is added or naturally occurring.

Yes. And the dose is the critical factor. Too much OR TOO LITTLE is not ideal. Chemical compounds are not 'good' or 'bad'; their merit or harm depends on how much we are exposed to.

Why don't you bugger off?

Because you won't stop saying things that are wrong, and so I feel the need to correct you to avoid your anti-knowledge infecting innocent third parties. It is a little public service I try to provide.

 

[arkirk]

Bilby: You are the same troll that downplays radioactive pollution. Who should be listening to you? You really need to take a few tranquilizers when you get on your high horse and start blasting away with your bullshit critiques you don't seem to know when to stop. You are just plain rude and I don't appreciate it and will not respond to you any longer.

 

[bilby]

Bilby: You are the same troll that downplays radioactive pollution.

Really? You think that that adds something to your argument against Fluoridation of water? Do you have no grasp of logic and reason at ALL?

Even if I thought that the Loch Ness monster shot JFK, that would still not have any bearing on whether I was right or wrong about fluoridation. Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously in a debate on a rationalist discussion board, you need to as a bare minimum avoid using the most commonplace and well known logical fallacies.

Who should be listening to you?

Anyone who values reason and fact over emotion, illogic and disinformation.

You really need to take a few tranquilizers when you get on your high horse and start blasting away with your bullshit critiques you don't seem to know when to stop.

Oh, I know how to stop; but I see no reason to do so while you are continuing to raise an unreasoning and counter-factual argument

You are just plain rude and I don't appreciate it and will not respond to you any longer.

That's fine by me; But I shall continue to point out errors and logical fallacies in your posts - if you don't want me to do that, you will need to stop making errors of fact, and stop using illogic and unreason to support your statements.

You might want to review the following, all of which are relevant to your behaviour so far in this brief discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness

And once you have learned how to avoid those, there are plenty more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your argument might be one worth looking at if the benefits of water fluoridation fell almost entirely onto adults. However, that is not the case. The benefits fall almost entirely on children and children alone, especially those who are in low income households.

So you are saying keep fluoridating for the sake of the minimum wage earners' children? I think the problem is one of somebody assuming that there is an easy way to reduce dental caries that does not involve the attention of those that are protected. This really isn't true. There are risks associated with fluoridating water supplies particularly if the water is over fluoridated. The usual agent is sodium flouride and that is a deadly poison. You get enough fluoride from brushing your teeth or using a rinse. It is easy to overdo the significance and the dosage of fluoride. I don't think it belongs in drinking water.

Too much is bad but they're not putting too much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

EVERYTHING is a deadly poison. Everything is also harmless. It's all about dose. And the doses used in municipal water supplies do VASTLY more good than harm.

There are risks with EVERYTHING. Including inaction.

Your post is a litany of utterly stupid non-arguments. You really are on a roll today.

You don't know what you are talking about fella. I worked for years in the desert removing toxic quantities of fluoride from well water for private well owners with solar distillers. I got variances for dual system use of over mineralized water from those wells. Fluoride is a toxic material in very low concentrations. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the germs that cause caries are dying and the teeth are surviving....also if it doesn't have other effects on bone and if it causes tooth mottling in concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L. You really need to study fluoride before you talk about it.

Fluoride isn't about killing germs. It's about strengthening teeth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bilby: You are the same troll that downplays radioactive pollution. Who should be listening to you? You really need to take a few tranquilizers when you get on your high horse and start blasting away with your bullshit critiques you don't seem to know when to stop. You are just plain rude and I don't appreciate it and will not respond to you any longer.

You're such a fanatic about pollution that you don't understand what we are saying.

 

[TV and credit cards]

nm

 

[DBT]

I don't think that comparing fluoridation with immunization is a fair comparison because, unlike immunization, it is reasonably easy to take care of one's own teeth.

The latter being an issue of education personal responsibility. The same measures that improve dental health, reducing processed carbs, cleaning after meals, etc, also improves and maintains overall health.

Public health is not measured on whether some alternative 'personal responsibility' method could in theory achieve results. Public health is measured on the systemic changes that are achieved by public health initiatives.

Yes, But I'm arguing for education and choice. Education in relation to the rather simple means of improving not only dental health, but overall health....which fluoridation alone does not address.

If a child's home life doesn't provide the necessary education or guidance, there should be classes at school that address not only dental health but health in general.

As to choice, on matters such as dental health and fluoridation, which the individual can address without government intervention, it should go to a vote. All relevant information made available, including the right to choose.

Now if the majority vote in favour of fluoridation, well and good, the minority can suck it up and make their own arrangements, filters, rain water, whatever.

But what if the majority votes against fluoridation? Would the minority of pro fluoridation supporters accept the result and make their own arrangements?

 

[bilby]

Public health is not measured on whether some alternative 'personal responsibility' method could in theory achieve results. Public health is measured on the systemic changes that are achieved by public health initiatives.

Yes, But I'm arguing for education and choice. Education in relation to the rather simple means of improving not only dental health, but overall health....which fluoridation alone does not address.

If a child's home life doesn't provide the necessary education or guidance, there should be classes at school that address not only dental health but health in general.

As to choice, on matters such as dental health and fluoridation, which the individual can address without government intervention, it should go to a vote. All relevant information made available, including the right to choose.

Now if the majority vote in favour of fluoridation, well and good, the minority can suck it up and make their own arrangements, filters, rain water, whatever.

But what if the majority votes against fluoridation? Would the minority of pro fluoridation supporters accept the result and make their own arrangements?

We don't take votes on matters of fact.

I don't care if 60% of the population oppose vaccination; or speed limits; or fluoridation.

I don't care if 80% of people support a 2.5 BAC limit for drink-driving.

Or if 95% of people want to imprison homosexuals to defend the nation against God's wrath.

Democracy is for matters of opinion. For matters of fact, we have science. And science tells us that 0.7mg/L of fluoride in drinking water has health benefits that massively outweigh any disadvantages.

If people really want to opt out of basic health and safety measures for religious reasons, then they are responsible for the cost and effort of doing so.

 

[DBT]

Yes, But I'm arguing for education and choice. Education in relation to the rather simple means of improving not only dental health, but overall health....which fluoridation alone does not address.

If a child's home life doesn't provide the necessary education or guidance, there should be classes at school that address not only dental health but health in general.

As to choice, on matters such as dental health and fluoridation, which the individual can address without government intervention, it should go to a vote. All relevant information made available, including the right to choose.

Now if the majority vote in favour of fluoridation, well and good, the minority can suck it up and make their own arrangements, filters, rain water, whatever.

But what if the majority votes against fluoridation? Would the minority of pro fluoridation supporters accept the result and make their own arrangements?

We don't take votes on matters of fact.

I don't care if 60% of the population oppose vaccination; or speed limits; or fluoridation.

I don't care if 80% of people support a 2.5 BAC limit for drink-driving.

Or if 95% of people want to imprison homosexuals to defend the nation against God's wrath.

Democracy is for matters of opinion. For matters of fact, we have science. And science tells us that 0.7mg/L of fluoride in drinking water has health benefits that massively outweigh any disadvantages.

If people really want to opt out of basic health and safety measures for religious reasons, then they are responsible for the cost and effort of doing so.

I'm not questioning efficacy. My issue is with choice.

I am quite capable of looking after my own teeth without help from the Government. I don't need additional fluoride in my water supply. I can use fluoridated toothpaste, get a free supply of supplement from the council, or whatever I choose. The choice is not made for me.

Many, if not the majority, of responsible adults are capable looking after their own teeth and their children's teeth, so it is people such as these, including me, who may want a choice on what goes into our water supply.

Hence my hypothetical. If it went to a vote, I am willing to accept the result, the wishes of the majority stands and I make my own arrangements, filtered water, rain water, etc.

So what about the opposite? What if the majority do not want fluoride added to their water supply? Would that be equally accepted by the opposition?

 

[bilby]

We don't take votes on matters of fact.

I don't care if 60% of the population oppose vaccination; or speed limits; or fluoridation.

I don't care if 80% of people support a 2.5 BAC limit for drink-driving.

Or if 95% of people want to imprison homosexuals to defend the nation against God's wrath.

Democracy is for matters of opinion. For matters of fact, we have science. And science tells us that 0.7mg/L of fluoride in drinking water has health benefits that massively outweigh any disadvantages.

If people really want to opt out of basic health and safety measures for religious reasons, then they are responsible for the cost and effort of doing so.

I'm not questioning efficacy. My issue is with choice.

I am quite capable of looking after my own teeth without help from the Government. I don't need additional fluoride in my water supply. I can use fluoridated toothpaste, get a free supply of supplement from the council, or whatever I choose. The choice is not made for me.

Many, if not the majority, of responsible adults are capable looking after their own teeth and their children's teeth, so it is people such as these, including me, who may want a choice on what goes into our water supply.

Hence my hypothetical. If it went to a vote, I am willing to accept the result, the wishes of the majority stands and I make my own arrangements, filtered water, rain water, etc.

So what about the opposite? What if the majority do not want fluoride added to their water supply? Would that be equally accepted by the opposition?

Fluoridation isn't much of a benefit for adults, responsible or otherwise; the main beneficiaries are children.

The state has a duty of care to children whose parents are either unaware, uncaring or irresponsible. That's why parents are told (not asked) to vaccinate their kids, and to send them to school.

Responsible adults are completely irrelevant to the question; The question of whether or not to fluoridate should not be up to them - they are not central players in the issue. Adding something harmless to their water, in order to help those less fortunate than them, is not even going to make it into my top million list of issues to care about.

Some things are too clear-cut and too important to be subject to public opinion.

 

[DBT]

Fluoridation isn't much of a benefit for adults, responsible or otherwise; the main beneficiaries are children.

That's why it makes more sense to target children, and not just add it to the municipal water and dose everyone and everything regardless of need or want. Schools are well placed to offer both a course in dental hygiene and a measured dosage of fluoride to children in their developing years...even though this is more the responsibility of parents.

 

[DBT]

Just as a matter of interest, here's a poll from the time when our city discontinued fluoridation and Mackay was considering its options ;

READER POLL
Do you think fluoride should be taken out of our region's water?
This poll ended on 07 February 2013.
Yes - 66%

No - 33%

 

[TV and credit cards]

A lot of the country's population has unfluoridated water, though I am not entirely certain why. I think part of it comes down to apathy toward the issue from much of the population, and a disinterest in municipal politics in general. The water supply was fluoridated when I was a kid, but when I moved across the country, I never thought about it. I only recently learned that most of my province's drinking water is not fluoridated. Canadian health organizations do support fluoridation, but it's a municipal issue. Perhaps if public health insurance covered non-emergency dental, the province would have a more vested interest in the matter.

Likely these unfluoridated areas are rural. In the US, 30% is unfluoridated. Folks in the country get their drinking water from wells or ponds on their property.
I notice from the Wikipedia entry many countries do not fluoridate their water. Many European countries do not or have stopped. I wonder how their choppers are? US and Australia are big on fluoride. i guess the Europeans don't care about their people's dental health like the US and Australia.
It probably doesn't hurt that fluoride is an industrial waste which provides an incentive for push-back from those who need to dispose of this waste.

 

[bilby]

Fluoridation isn't much of a benefit for adults, responsible or otherwise; the main beneficiaries are children.

That's why it makes more sense to target children, and not just add it to the municipal water and dose everyone and everything regardless of need or want. Schools are well placed to offer both a course in dental hygiene and a measured dosage of fluoride to children in their developing years...even though this is more the responsibility of parents.

Schools are not well placed for this purpose, as children are almost five years old when they first attend. And the same dumb arguments would still be presented by the ill-informed parents as to why their precious little flowers can't be exposed to fluoride even if it were given out as tablets in schools.

Putting it in the water is cheap, safe and effective in a way that no other measure can be.

Letting the people decide on matters of fact is dumb. Let experts decide on matters of fact; democracy is for opinions, not science.

 

[Underseer]

I don't think that comparing fluoridation with immunization is a fair comparison because, unlike immunization, it is reasonably easy to take care of one's own teeth.

The latter being an issue of education personal responsibility. The same measures that improve dental health, reducing processed carbs, cleaning after meals, etc, also improves and maintains overall health.

I disagree. I live in a place that does not have fluoridated water. So I take my kids to the dentist regularly, and they receive periodic fluoride treatments. Also I buy and enforce use of toothpaste and decent brushing technique.

My neighbors, however, do NOT all have the opportunity to go to a dentist regularly. Nor are they all educated enough to make teeth education a priority to their kids.

So quite a few of my neighbors do not have any modern protection for their teeth and will expect the same cycle as their parents - starting to loose them in their 40s and earlier.

Many of these arguments; fluoridation, food, sex education, vaccines etc, where people say, "oh come on, _I_ don't need this," make the mistake of assuming that everyone in the picture is equally capable. They aren't. And society benefits, in my estimation, from taking care of those who _don't_ have average education and responsibility.

The fact that all of these things are trivially easy for me does not (and should not) erase my knowledge that it is not easy for everyone.

While I agree with your arguments, I think that DBT is right to point out that the consequences of not fluoridating water are not as severe as the consequences of not vaccinating.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This is one of those hot button issues that many conspiracy theorists get their knickers in a twist about.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM?t=1m28s[/YOUTUBE]

And then there's THIS asshole

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Likely these unfluoridated areas are rural. In the US, 30% is unfluoridated. Folks in the country get their drinking water from wells or ponds on their property.

The numbers I had looked at indicated in 2007 55% of the population did not have fluoridated water. The population of Canada at the time (and currently) was 80% urban and 20% rural. Mind you the definition of 'urban' in this case seems to include towns with a core population of 10,000 or greater. Some of the unfluoridated regions are in urban centres with populations exceeding one million, though.