Flouridation: Calgary reaps what the crazies sowed

[arkirk]

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

I don't think the fluoridation issue is one of a conspiracy, but I think it is more a matter of what is appropriate. There is a maximum age at which human dentition ceases to incorporate new material in teeth. That, to my knowledge is about 14 y.o. That however is not the maximum age at which human bones can be affected by Fluoride and fluorosis weakens bones. Supposing there is an ideal level of fluoride for children. Then, would it not be appropriate to give them the fluoride that is appropriate and not dose older people with material that weakens their bones? Fluoridation is an authoritarian one size fits all approach to a real problem that has other solutions. Some are so influenced by the chemical salesmen that they do not mind trampling other people's right to control what goes in their body.

As far as "this asshole" goes, who is he and why is he necessarily an asshole? I would have to know what he was referring to, but people do seem to, after being properly PR'ed come to hysterically believe all sorts of things and we have plenty of recent examples of this behavior. I do not know the context of the video. He may not be an asshole. We have the Koch brothers spending huge amounts on global warming denial in an attempt to dumb down society and overcome resistance to their petroleum pollution. They are losing the battle however, so the hysterical acceptance of propaganda is not always achieved. I think most of the pressure for fluoridation is perhaps only driven by an authoritarian desire to control tooth decay and is perhaps more innocent than most chemical marketing schemes, nevertheless...I think it is a wrong headed approach.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, this thread took a turn...

 

[scombrid]

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.

The thread already conceded that there is such a thing as too much fluoride in drinking water.

That does not mean that adding fluoride to water in areas where it is deficient doesn't provide a net benefit.

Most would agree that the best method of fluoride use for prevention of dental caries is through non-ingested oral care products. But adding it to drinking water is simple and has not produced a demonstrated harm that offsets the benefit to oral health in the general population when the concentration is correct.

 

[scombrid]

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

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

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

Fluoride does not protect teeth by acting as a biocide.

 

[scombrid]

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.

And when the parents refuse the education as propaganda? Then what?

All relevant information made available, including the right to choose.

Information becomes a sticking point when there is so much disinformation out there on top of general laziness of the information consumer. Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield on the vax side come to mind in this arena.

 

[Malintent]

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?

You keep using the phrase "at low concentrations", but then site concentrations that are more than double what is recommended for drinking water. those would be "extremely high concentrations" for drinking water, not "low". Perhaps, in your field, you are dealing with naturally occurring fluoride? I am no geologist (or related expert), but I am figuring that maybe "low concentrations" in this field is far different than what "low concentrations" mean in the municipal system?

 

[scombrid]

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.

I do not agree with putting Fluoridation in the same category as vaccination. Vaccination reduces the prevalence or even eliminates diseases that can spread from person to person. This is not true of tooth decay. Therefore the state has less stake here if maybe none at all.

People let their kids get fat, people don't have their kids educated well, people indoctrinate their kids into religion, etc... People do all kinds of things that are sub-optimal for their children but the state generally leaves it to choice short of gross abuse.

 

[bilby]

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.

I do not agree with putting Fluoridation in the same category as vaccination. Vaccination reduces the prevalence or even eliminates diseases that can spread from person to person. This is not true of tooth decay. Therefore the state has less stake here if maybe none at all.

People let their kids get fat, people don't have their kids educated well, people indoctrinate their kids into religion, etc... People do all kinds of things that are sub-optimal for their children but the state generally leaves it to choice short of gross abuse.

I agree that vaccination is far more important than fluoridation.

But I do not agree that parents should be permitted to harm their children - even a little - due to parental ignorance or false beliefs. Such harm should only be tolerated because acting against it is impractical; parents do not, and should not be allowed to behave as though they, own their children outright. Fluoridation is easy and cheap.

It takes a village to raise a child; parents need to be less proprietorial, particularly when considering matters of fact. When there is a right answer and a wrong answer, there is no 'right to choose'. You may not drop your baby down the stairs, no matter how passionately you believe that gravity is a government plot.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I think this might be a first, I agree with arkirk. And I you are going against your libertarian side LP. You should leave it up to each parent to decide.

 

[DBT]

And when the parents refuse the education as propaganda? Then what?

What then? Does the government step in and take control for the good of the children?

Medicate everyone in order to target the children of the families of conspiracy theorists and lazy indolent parents?

This is just an issue of not feeding the kids junk food and soft drinks to the degree their teeth decay, they become overweight, develop metabolic syndrome along with a host of life long health problems. Basic sense.

Fluoride is just a band aid measure, a simplistic 'solution' that does not address the underlying problems, Give everyone a dose of fluoride regardless of how much or how little water you drink, or that the vulnerable target group, the children, may be drinking more sugar water/soft drinks than tap water....and wasted on adults, animals and the plants in the garden.

A scatter gun approach to public health.

Information becomes a sticking point when there is so much disinformation out there on top of general laziness of the information consumer. Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield on the vax side come to mind in this arena.

Shouldn't adults who have children inform themselves as to how to take care of their children's health?

 

[dismal]

I think this might be a first, I agree with arkirk. And I you are going against your libertarian side LP. You should leave it up to each parent to decide.

I would say people the libertarian view would be to let people opt out of the public water supply and not pay for it if they don't like it.

I'm not sure there is a libertarian position on what chemicals should be added to the public water supply given there is a public water supply.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I think this might be a first, I agree with arkirk. And I you are going against your libertarian side LP. You should leave it up to each parent to decide.

I would say people the libertarian view would be to let people opt out of the public water supply and not pay for it if they don't like it.

I'm not sure there is a libertarian position on what chemicals should be added to the public water supply given there is a public water supply.

Yes and no. It's up to a Libertarian to decide what goes in his/her/or children's body.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes and no. It's up to a Libertarian to decide what goes in his/her/or children's body.

Okay, I'm going there:

But what about a substance like lead which has been know to cause neurological damage to the individual? Is it up to a Libertarian to decide what goes in his/her/or children's body if it is known to cause harm?

 

[dismal]

I would say people the libertarian view would be to let people opt out of the public water supply and not pay for it if they don't like it.

I'm not sure there is a libertarian position on what chemicals should be added to the public water supply given there is a public water supply.

Yes and no. It's up to a Libertarian to decide what goes in his/her/or children's body.

But there can only be one public water stream. Some people may want fluoride or anti-bacterials or kool-aid or phosphates in it and some may not. There is no public water solution in which everyone gets what they want to put into their body in the water.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no. It's up to a Libertarian to decide what goes in his/her/or children's body.

Okay, I'm going there:

But what about a substance like lead which has been know to cause neurological damage to the individual? Is it up to a Libertarian to decide what goes in his/her/or children's body if it is known to cause harm?

That one is on the edge because it involves question of how fast, what is the harm, was there some type of rationale choice, etc.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Okay, I'm going there:

But what about a substance like lead which has been know to cause neurological damage to the individual? Is it up to a Libertarian to decide what goes in his/her/or children's body if it is known to cause harm?

That one is on the edge because it involves question of how fast, what is the harm, was there some type of rationale choice, etc.

If it works slowly, mentally cripples the individual, and the parents believe that lead is beneficial,

 

[coloradoatheist]

That one is on the edge because it involves question of how fast, what is the harm, was there some type of rationale choice, etc.

If it works slowly, mentally cripples the individual, and the parents believe that lead is beneficial,

It is grey, but you do have to give parents the doubt. I guess how long before we outlaw fast food to kids?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If it works slowly, mentally cripples the individual, and the parents believe that lead is beneficial,

It is grey, but you do have to give parents the doubt. I guess how long before we outlaw fast food to kids?

Slippery slope. Lead is known to be harmful and has been know to be permanent brain damage for thousands of years. Fast food can be beneficial. Equating the two is a false equivalence and an irrational appeal to emotion. It is good to know the libertarian position is that it is up to the parents regardless of the health and safety of the child.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is grey, but you do have to give parents the doubt. I guess how long before we outlaw fast food to kids?

Slippery slope. Lead is known to be harmful and has been know to be permanent brain damage for thousands of years. Fast food can be beneficial. Equating the two is a false equivalence and an irrational appeal to emotion. It is good to know the libertarian position is that it is up to the parents regardless of the health and safety of the child.

WWNSD

[What Would Natural Selection Do]

 

[coloradoatheist]

It is grey, but you do have to give parents the doubt. I guess how long before we outlaw fast food to kids?

Slippery slope. Lead is known to be harmful and has been know to be permanent brain damage for thousands of years. Fast food can be beneficial. Equating the two is a false equivalence and an irrational appeal to emotion. It is good to know the libertarian position is that it is up to the parents regardless of the health and safety of the child.

Fast food can be very dangerous and you could say that it doesn't gain anything besides empty calories when you need calories. Asbestos for a whole had good properties until they found out it caused other problems. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQs and other neurological diseases. So it's a trade offs of parents between cavities and potential harmful side affects.