Army Develops New Chewing Gum

IEBEYEBALL writes "The Army is developing a new chewing gum to help soldiers fight dental problems in the field. The gum takes the place of brushing teeth, which the soldier in a combat situation might not have time or means to do. This sounds like the perfect solution for the geek on the go!"

Comments

Sounds nice, but the dentist told me...

[NCraig]

I've been told a few times that if you don't floss you might as well not even brush. I don't see how any gum could possibly be effective in the same way as flossing.

However, I'm impressed that the Army has finally found something of use for both soldiers and really lazy people.

Re:Some people already do this!

[SacredNaCl]

I read the first few paragraphs of your fluoride conspiracy diatribe, and as far as I can tell, all of the results you're referencing (well, not referencing...you didnt really reference anything) describe situations where people or animals were given enormous amounts of fluoride, far in excess of what the ADA recommends. Would you be surprised if a study found ill effects in humans who swallowed 125 times the recommended dose of aspirin? You can believe this rubbish if you want, but at least be consistent - aspirin too should be condemned by your standards.

I guess the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the US Dept of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization are all in on it too, right? This conspiracy reaches much further than we thought! :P

The WHO (World Health Organization) concurs with my position. The CDC does not, but I wouldn't expect them to. They are responsible for the addition of fluoride into the water in the first place, as was the sturcture of our government at the time. No, I am not talking exposures "125 times", I am talking about mere factor of 2 to 3, and one that is easily exceeded in a substance as toxic as fluorine compounds are as the quantities involved are very minute.

You mean like the people who ramble on and on about a fluoride conspiracy and then wonder why their teeth are messed up and full of cavities?

He would be in rather good company:
Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have banned fluoride in the water, and several have gone as far as ban a wide variety of fluoride containing products. It seems countries with socialized dental programs figured out it didn't work out on the balance sheet. Their teeth are fine, and on average, in better health than the teeth of similarly situated countries who allow its use.

Proposals go up every year to ban the use of fluoridated salt as well. People who scream that criticism of fluoride is based merely on far out conspiracies have never stopped to look into just how low of a dose can cause very severe health consequence. In countries where fluoride occurs naturally in the water, and they lack the technology or financial means to effectively remove it, you can compare their consumption levels to our own.(Parts of the US use water with high levels of naturally occuring fluoride as well, and when remediation isn't taken, they end up with the same health effects.) The margin of difference between having a fair portion of your society sick from fluoride and escaping the worst (but not the mild & moderate effects of toxicity) is not high at all. Its often less than a factor of 2.

When I see a village in India, or Pakistan, or Sudan, or Kenya, or Peru with 20-30% of the inhabitants clearly suffering from excess fluoride exposure,and their water levels come back a mere 3.02 and we have 1.0 in the water here, then compare dietary exposures, and it brings their total adjusted exposure to 4.12 and ours to 2.78 ..We are talking about a razors edge margin of safety. This margin could easly be exceeded by a person who drinks more water, or drinks a lot of tea, or eats regularly grapes, raisins, wine (where the grapes are subject to cyrolite pesticide use), cereals processed with fluoridated water, or drinks beer occasionally.

It is plainly obvious to see that the US Government is not telling the truth when they say there are no measurable consequences to using less than 8ppm of fluoride in the water and diet. Cases of fluoride toxicity in the US itself show it merely takes longer if the exposure levels are in the 3.0-7.9 range. Cases from around the world show that a mere 3.12 in the water is enough to substantially affect the health of a large number of residents over time. Even the EPA's MCL of 4.0 is ovbiously set too high. (Of course, when they try to lower it, the bosses at the EPA tend to put them on unpaid leave and the union has to step in to sue to get peoples