Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Who knows more?

August 1, 2013

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century, along with vaccination, family planning, recognition......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(31)

NYSCOF

Aug-02-13 12:01 PM

The CDC's oral health division consists of about 30 dentist/bureaucrats. They are the only CDC employees working on fluoridation. They are hired to promote fluoridation not study it. And they have just hired "Liars for Hire" (a public relations company) for $6 million, of your tax dollars, to sell you on fluoridation because there is no valid science that proves fluoridation is safe or effective.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-02-13 6:20 AM

Sorry Phil, but the facts actually lie on the side of non-fluoridation. They are easy to find and some of the federal governments own actions like, regulating fluoride in drinking water as a contaminants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Aug-02-13 2:49 AM

ToTEXASfromPA - 6:41 AM

"I would think there are enough people in the US that have been on well water/non-fluoridated water compared to fluoridated water that they could compare health of teeth and the impacts of fluoride to the brain and body."

My kids were raised on well water and Crest fluoride toothpaste! They grew up 99% cavity free.

They began learning to brush and care for their teeth from the time they cut their first two! Each had their first visit to the dentist at age 2 and every 6 months thereafter.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-01-13 4:39 PM

I am curious, do the folks that oppose fluoridation also oppose mandatory childhood vaccination?

So, the Polio vaccine, thumbs up or thumbs down?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-01-13 1:40 PM

This appears to be just one more issue that’s argued with much emotion and little or no facts.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-01-13 11:16 AM

"Carl where do you get your bat crazy info? Flouride is found and used in other products beside municipal water supplies. Those products are no monitored at all." I agree except for the bat crazy remark. You can find all the info at the NRC, the The National Academies and other relevant sources. "Fluoride is one of the drinking water contaminants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,)" HMMMMMMMM ! Bat Crazy - sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-01-13 10:05 AM

"What are the alleged harmful consequences of ingesting fluoride?"

Actually there is several ranging from discoloration of teeth to brittle bones to cancer. But then that would have be from a large dose of flouride. You are more likely to get an overdose from products off the shelf in stores than in the water supply. But anything that a person consumes in large quanities can and does have a toxic effect on the human body. Moderation is the key word here but as usual it is ignored.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-01-13 9:59 AM

Now we are getting to the heart of the issue. Choice. Not all municipalities put flouride in their water. The argument against it is because it takes away individual choice. It is not that it is toxic or poisinous or causes discoloration. They do not care about the benefits of having it, they don't like fact that they can not take it out cheaply. Which brings us to the benefits of flouride and healthy teeth. If you take the flouride out of the water the only ones who can get the benefit of flouride are those who can afford it.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-01-13 9:51 AM

What are the alleged harmful consequences of ingesting fluoride?

This argument has been going on since fluoride was first added to drinking water.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ajcdds

Aug-01-13 9:35 AM

"In countries that refuse to have fluoride in their water supply. They do have it in their table salt and milk." CMReeder

Most advanced nations do not fluoridate their water. In Western Europe, 97% of the population has water without a single drop of fluoride added to it. Only five nations have any fluoridated salt. The vast majority do not. The countries that have fluoridated milk programs include: Russian Federation, Chile, Thailand, and Bulgaria in addition to some schools in the UK. With salt and milk one has the choice of using it or not ... there are some studies that show many do not. Most households cannot afford a reverse osmosis system to remove fluoride from their water ... and therefor there is no choice.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ajcdds

Aug-01-13 9:16 AM

Carl, extremely well written explanations about fluoride. I find the situation both bizarre and tragic.

FLUORIDE DOES NOT WORK SYSTEMICALLY AND IT IS HARMFULL TO INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN. That should be "period - end of story". Unfortunately there are still some government agencies that find it hard to change their recommendations. It will happen slowly to avoid potential legal culpability. In 2011 the CDC recommended a reduced level of .7 ppm fluoride down from 1.2 ppm. (Why? Could it be they saw some harmful overdose issues ... Williamsport is still at the higher levels). In a couple of years it is predicted that the CDC will lower it again ... at which point most communities will end the practice. Unfortunately that will be ten years from now.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-01-13 9:04 AM

Wow! So Carl where do you get your bat crazy info? Flouride is found and used in other products beside municipal water supplies. Those products are no monitored at all. How many parents out there know that no child under 2 should be using any toothpaste when brushing their teeth. Children over 2 should not be brushing their teeth with a toothpaste on their brush larger than a pea.

In countries that refuse to have flouride in their water supply. They do have it in their table salt and milk.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

andy33

Aug-01-13 8:47 AM

The CDC is also RESPONSIBLE for people not getting insurance coverage for chronic LYME disease....oh yes...three cheers for the CDC!!!!!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-01-13 8:42 AM

Fluoride in dentistry is fundamentally different from community water fluoridation. Dental practitioners apply controlled doses of a pharmaceutical grade fluoride directly to tooth surfaces, while community water fluoridation exposes everyone who drinks water to uncontrolled and unmonitored doses of a toxic-contaminated industrial waste fluoride compound. That is a tremendous difference. The benefits of fluoride are realized when applied directly to tooth surfaces, not through ingestion. The CDC and National Research Council agree with this.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ajcdds

Aug-01-13 8:34 AM

"I would think there are enough people in the US that have been on well water/non-fluoridated water compared to fluoridated water that they could compare health of teeth" - ToTEXASfromPA

Actually there are hundreds of studies comparing communities with a low level of natural occurring fluoride with those that fluoridate (One could easily compare Williamsport with Montoursville). Just because small levels are found in some water supplies doesn't make it safe. Arsenic is in the water also (and more so in communities that artificially fluoridate). Thank goodness mothers that live in fluoridated communities have a protective mechanism that limits fluoride in breast milk. Those that bottle feed, using tap water to reconstitute the formula, are giving their infant 250 times the recommended dose.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-01-13 8:16 AM

"And Shammy's comeback is...." - Tedeaux

*

The FACTS.

I DO receive a certain perverse sense of amusement....making the T-Baggers THINK, this early in the day!!!!

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-01-13 8:11 AM

"I would think there are enough people in the US that have been on well water/non-fluoridated water compared to fluoridated water that they could compare health of teeth and the impacts of fluoride to the brain and body." - ToTEXASfromPA

*

Obviously, not.

"Fluoride is present in water as "ions" or electrically charged atoms. These ions are the same whether acquired by water as it seeps through rocks and sand or added to the water supply under carefully controlled conditions. When fluoride is added under controlled conditions to fluoride-deficient water, the dental benefits are the same as those obtained from NATURALLY fluoridated water. Fluoridation is merely a supplementation of the NATURALLY OCCURRING fluoride present in ALL drinking water sources."

*

See:

The Flouride Debate | Question 3 | Natural Versus Adjusted?

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Aug-01-13 7:40 AM

And Shammy's comeback is....... Great slam dunk there aj!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ajcdds

Aug-01-13 6:46 AM

"Experts", like who?

My mentor is Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, former President Canadian Association for Dental Research and past chairman of the dept. of preventive dentistry University of Toronto. There is also: Miklos Bely, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., National Institute of Rheumatology, Robert Carton, PhD, Former President, EPA Headquarters Union, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor emeritus, Environmental & Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois, J. William Hirzy, PhD, Chemist in Residence, American University and former Senior Vice President, EPA Headquarters Union. The list of thousands goes on and on.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-01-13 6:43 AM

"There is one reason that should be enough to reject fluoridation of the water - fluoride is classified as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (tooth decay)by the FDA." - CarlHiller

*

"Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health."

See:

Water Fluoridation Controversy (Wikipedia)

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Aug-01-13 6:41 AM

Maybe the fluoride for the teeth via the right application at the right times in people's life is the best thing to do. Whereas taking the "chip dip" approach by putting it in all the municipal water so that it not only treats the teeth but goes to the body and brain is the wrong thing to do?? I don't know.

I would think there are enough people in the US that have been on well water/non-fluoridated water compared to fluoridated water that they could compare health of teeth and the impacts of fluoride to the brain and body.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-01-13 6:35 AM

There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate effectiveness or safety of fluoridation. Despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The FDA continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.” According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” In a review of the literature commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fluoride has been listed among about 100 chemicals for which there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” National Research Council (2006), “the consistency of the results [in fluoride/IQ studies] appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” The NRC’s conclusion has recently been amplified by a team of Harvard scientists whose fluoride/IQ meta-review concludes that fluoride’s impact on the developing brain should be a “high research priority.”

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-01-13 6:31 AM

So another liberal attorney voices an opinion based on governmental organizations, which have not been very truthful to the public a number of times. There is one reason that should be enough to reject fluoridation of the water - fluoride is classified as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (tooth decay)by the FDA. It is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of a medical treatment. Basic logic would show that adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay is a medical treatment. Any other water treatments are added to improve the quality or safety of the water supply, which fluoride does not do. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. 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. The public is being forcibly medicated by government.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-01-13 6:17 AM

"Here is one for you Scott, the floride that is currently used in municipal water supplies is a by product of the fertizer business!" - Tedeaux

*

You didn't happen to get this lil' "gem" from WorldNutzDaily, did you??

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-01-13 6:14 AM

"Hopefully everyone recognizes all the old tired unsubstantiated endorsements listed by Scott. And yes there are others that do know a lot more. They are the same ones that actually read current peer-review literature from experts in the field." - ajcdds

*

"Experts", like who?

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 31 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web