luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
I get most of mine from sushi and single-malt Scotch whisky.
Please read more carefully. The fluoride is not part of the human body's tooth-growing process. It is not a nutrient that leads to tooth decay when absent, and it is not sought out by the body in order to produce teeth.
Using sealants can reduce the incidence of tooth decay significantly, but the sealing is an artificial process not related in any way to normal tooth development.
If the vast majority of water supplies across the world had one part per million of fluoride dissolved in them, then its lack in some water could be considered unusual and abnormal. As it stands, there's nothing normal or natural about adding fluoride to water.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NOT GOOD.
Stop looking for woos behind every post and read what's written.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
Flouride is beneficial to about 10% of the population- growing children. Aspirin benefits about the same amount, should we put aspirin into the water supply? Same with ...protein? Statin drugs? alcohol?
Children can take flouride pills for a few years, just like I've been taking aspirin.
Funny how the cavity rate has dropped in areas without flouridation- all that advertising for Crest, perhaps?
And Iodine? Best source is ocean sea food. But I do wonder about the neccessity of adding it to salt, since all salt is oceanic, some has just been burried for a few million years. Didn't the oceans have iodine back then? Do the salt companies actually add the iodine, or just change the labels?
Children can take flouride pills for a few years, just like I've been taking aspirin.
Funny how the cavity rate has dropped in areas without flouridation- all that advertising for Crest, perhaps?
And Iodine? Best source is ocean sea food. But I do wonder about the neccessity of adding it to salt, since all salt is oceanic, some has just been burried for a few million years. Didn't the oceans have iodine back then? Do the salt companies actually add the iodine, or just change the labels?
Salt taken straight out of sea water contains sufficient iodine, but mined salt doesn't.
There have been several unfortunate cases of primitive societies who previously traded across long distance for salt being sold it directly by unscrupulous or ignorant people, and having goiters and mentally-retarded children as a result.
Some regions also have naturally low levels of iodine in the soil, for various reasons. If the people living there don't have access to seafood, they can suffer from iodine deficiency.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/laopdr_22839.html
There have been several unfortunate cases of primitive societies who previously traded across long distance for salt being sold it directly by unscrupulous or ignorant people, and having goiters and mentally-retarded children as a result.
Some regions also have naturally low levels of iodine in the soil, for various reasons. If the people living there don't have access to seafood, they can suffer from iodine deficiency.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/laopdr_22839.html
Heh. The main reason, as far as I am concerned, to avoid aspartame-sweetened products is taht it doesn't taste very nice and it's beginning to be a hassle in the UK, finding products without it (it's even in crips).
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I wondered why Laphroaig tasted like that.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
So all that "natural sea salt" that's sold in health food shops to the sort of people who complain about iodization, is actually iodized? I suppose if it's "natural" it doesn't count.
I don't recall ever having noticed campaigners demanding that fluoride is removed from drinking water in those areas where it occurs naturally either. If fluoride added to water is dangerous, naturally occuring fluoride is just as dangerous.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
So all that "natural sea salt" that's sold in health food shops to the sort of people who complain about iodization, is actually iodized? I suppose if it's "natural" it doesn't count.
I don't recall ever having noticed campaigners demanding that fluoride is removed from drinking water in those areas where it occurs naturally either. If fluoride added to water is dangerous, naturally occuring fluoride is just as dangerous.
Nononononono...BAD MOJO, bad Mojo. don't you know, anything natural is not only safe for human consumption (e.g. foxglove, belladonna, and blowfish) but is a superior product to anything that man can make. Therefore, areas that have naturally occuring flouride in their drinking water should never have their water treated to remove anything other than that nasty dihydrogen monoxide.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I get exactly this from Mrs. Mojo (i.e. the "if it's natural it must be safe"). I haven't found any argument that'll dissuade her, either from the belladonna/botulism side or by arguing that if something allegedly has positive effects there has to be the possibility of negative effects as well.
Last edited:
There are places in the Ozarks of Missouri that have dangerously high levels of dissolved lead in the groundwater, due to the presence of so much lead ore. Water from wells isn't safe to drink unless it's been very carefully treated.
That's at least one example of nature causing progressive brain damage, dementia, and slow death. Does Mrs. Mojo need more?
That's at least one example of nature causing progressive brain damage, dementia, and slow death. Does Mrs. Mojo need more?
Nex
Forum Turnip
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,655
True, but you're either not fully informed or are deliberately leaving out pertinent information.
To go a little more in-depth,Hole's Human Anatomy and Physiology said:
Yes... so? I'm not arguing that fluoride forms some other compound when it binds to tooth enamel. Nor am I suggesting that, when it does so, the resulting compound isn't more resistant to acid erosion.
Unlike iron, iodine, calcium, or a host of other trace minerals, I know of no evidence that the body seeks out and concentrates fluoride ions. It doesn't incorporate them into tooth enamel, either - the change comes from either directly exposing formed teeth to concentrations of fluoride, or exposure of developing teeth to fluoride dissolved in the blood.
For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought.
Unlike iron, iodine, calcium, or a host of other trace minerals, I know of no evidence that the body seeks out and concentrates fluoride ions. It doesn't incorporate them into tooth enamel, either - the change comes from either directly exposing formed teeth to concentrations of fluoride, or exposure of developing teeth to fluoride dissolved in the blood.
For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Mel (can I call you Mel?),
Now, now. We've already been over this. Anything natural must, by defintion be better than anything manmade. Therefore, the floride products cannot be be better than what our bodies produce without all this bothersome meddling by man.
Seriously, tho. I get yer point. The body doesn't REQUIRE flouride, but when it gets flouride, it puts it to good use. [analogy]Like using coke (et al) to make iron into stronger, more flexable steel. We don't NEED steel, but if we can have it, all the better.[/analogy]
I will say that, since we DO know about flouride's effects, doesn't it make sense for us to make a conscious decision to seek it out? Even if it's not a neccessary element?
John Jackson
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 664
How does the body “seek out” Iron or Calcium?
The body requires Iron, Calcium etc., but it doesn’t require fluoride. Perhaps that’s where you’re getting confused.
Wrong, the fluoride does end up in tooth enamel – that is the very reason that the enamel is more resistant to decay.
Now where have we heard that jibe before?
Tantrum time again now, I suppose.
Nex
Forum Turnip
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,655
I know.
It's understood, at least by myself, that your argument against fluoride is supported by the fact that the human body does not need it to live. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. You're right on that count, and I for one am not disagreeing with you.
You are mistaken. Fluoride certainly does bond with tooth enamel, forming a harder, stronger, and more cavity-resistant substance than "natural" hydroxyapatite enamel. This is done by contact, as you have already pointed out (thus contradicting yourself), as well as dissolution from blood to the tooth, which is done by the body.
Pot and kettle.
Last edited:
You ARE disagreeing with me: I'm not making an argument against fluoride.
YOU are mistaken. You also seem to be having a little problem with reading comprehension. At no point did I suggest that fluoride doesn't chemically react with tooth enamel. What I said was that the body does not incorporate fluoride into tooth enamel. Incorporation is an active process; fluoride is not actively used by the body at all.
Until you learn to recognize the difference between what people say and what you expect them to say, you will be unworthy of respect and attention. I see no reason to give you any more of my time.
[twip]
No, it doesn't. The body doesn't use fluoride at all. There are no active processes that absorb fluoride ions from the environment and direct them into tooth enamel. Fluoride ions react with the calcium compounds in teeth and bones simply because they're in solution.
That doesn't mean that saturating teeth with fluoride ions isn't good. It doesn't mean it isn't bad. It's stating a simple fact, without interpretation or speculation as to consequences.
Do we, though? Were modern epidemiological studies on the total lifetime effects of higher fluoride concentrations done? How much fluoride does get taken up by the bones, and what effects does that have? If the fluoridation of water is only actually beneficial for people with developing teeth, is it harmless enough to justify exposing everyone to that specific treatment?
One of the differences between wooism and science is that woos aren't interested in critically examining their ideas, while scientists and critical thinkers are. If you really want to go about convincing anti-fluoridation believers that they're wrong, shouldn't you have answers to the questions I asked above? Why are so many of the people in this thread unwilling to answer the questions of the devil's advocate?
Is it possible that they don't actually have the answers themselves?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I'll give it a try next time the subject comes up, but I doubt it'll work. Lead has for a long time been recognised as a poison you see, and anyway, it isn't "herbal."
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
I'll give it a try next time the subject comes up, but I doubt it'll work. Lead has for a long time been recognised as a poison you see, and anyway, it isn't "herbal."
It ISN'T??!!
Melendyr,
It seems that we need to have a thumb wrestling match between you and Nex.
One of you says that the body does use flouride, and the other says it don't. I'm not a doctor of any sort, nor do I have the capability to do the kind of research necessary to resolve this conflict.
I'll admit that I'm partial to the "flouride is used by the body" crowd, as I once had a dentist prescribe a toothpaste with a higher percentage flouride than you can normally get to repair damage that I'd done to my teeth (Kids, don't chew tobacco...it can ruin your teeth. This PSA brought to you by, Me.).
Also, if flouride cannot be absorbed into the body, then how can it turn the teeth brown?