Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water

An anonymous reader writes: Federal health officials Monday changed the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time since 1962, cutting by almost half the maximum amount of fluoride that should be added to drinking supplies. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the long-standing range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. The change is recommended because now Americans have access to more sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, than they did when fluoridation was first introduced in the United States,' Dr. Boris Lushniak, the deputy surgeon general, told reporters during a conference call.

Comments

It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's finally time we embraced "The Big Book of British Smiles" on this side of the pond!

Re:It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain has better dental health than the USA. But keep peddling that century old myth if it makes you feel better.

Re:It's finally time

[Chrisq]

Britain has better dental health than the USA. But keep peddling that century old myth if it makes you feel better.

My wife is American and finds this particularly funny. When she came to the UK she had a lot of treatment that she could not have afforded in the USA, and our daughter has orthodontic treatment without charge - and some of her relatives who have had teeth removed because they could not afford treatment still make jokes about British teeth

Re:It's finally time

[Lumpy]

Here in the USA Dental health is looked at as a luxury. Dentists fight like hell to keep costs high and insurance crappy.

It's a crime that most americans have almost no dental care they can afford. Yes most. you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.

Re:It's finally time

[DocSavage64109]

What? You guys must be anomalies, because every single medieval movie set in Britain I've seen has lots of people missing teeth.

Re:It's finally time

[johnlcallaway]

Dental health is a service provided by people who spend money to outfit dental clinics. Same as medical professionals. As such, the market dictates the availability and costs. Instead of the government, which is the way it should be. It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well, should be running healthcare and dental care. Just so a small minority of the population can afford something. Rather than provide services that only that small portion of the population can use if they choose to.

Insurance is 'crappy' because the most expensive treatments are cosmetic and most insurance won't cover more than 50%. Same as health regular insurance, it doesn't cover many cosmetic treatments. Because, if it did, insurance rates would go up to cover the increased costs. Providing orthodontic coverage for anyone other than those with serious misalignment places a large monetary burden on everyone else, just so they can look pretty. Why should I have pay for someone to have a pretty smile?? Letting me decide what insurance I want is the best way to provide efficient coverage without further driving up demand and costs.

You see that in the medical field. Breast augmentations are covered as the result of cancer treatments, not simply because someone got old. Cataract surgery isn't covered until it affects ones ability to drive, not because someone just wants to see better.

Many companies provide dental insurance as an inexpensive benefit. It's inexpensive because most people CHOOSE to not use it.

Re:It's finally time

[king neckbeard]

The reason that Americans say Brits have bad teeth is because of whiteness and straightness, neither of which has much to do with number of cavities. There, the mystery is solved. Also, there's the distinct possibility that Brits today care more about their dental health because it was so shitty, either in aesthetics or health, for so long.

Re:It's finally time

[TheRaven64]

There was a study posted on Slashdot about this myth a few years ago. They concluded that Americans care more about their teeth because good dental care is expensive and so is a status symbol. Having few teeth is one of the stereotypes of poor/stupid people in the US. Middle class and aspiring middle class people in the US spend money on their teeth (cosmetically, at least) because if they don't then they look poor. For people in the UK, anyone can afford good dental care (for a while, it was easier for very poor people to because a lot of dentists weren't taking new NHS customers except under duress and people on certain forms of income support had guaranteed treatment), so going to the dentist is just seen as a chore and often slipped down priorities.

Re: It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how many seniors will not give up Medicare even though it is government run.

Can you explain how corporate lobbyists were able to remove dental care from services to the elderly in order to maintain the idea of good teeth as a luxury? I don't see anything about doctors maintaining a specific lifestyle within the Hippocratic oath.

Re:It's finally time

[xaxa]

Dental health is a service provided by people who spend money to outfit dental clinics. Same as medical professionals. As such, the market dictates the availability and costs.

Fire fighting service is [etc, etc].

It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well,

That's a very American viewpoint. In other countries, government functions well. In others, it does well with some things, and badly at others.

Why should I have pay for someone to have a pretty smile??

Because they'll pay for you to have something you'd argue isn't essential, like fire protection, food safety, fertility treatments, counselling, etc.

Cataract surgery isn't covered until it affects ones ability to drive, not because someone just wants to see better.

My grandma is booked for cataract surgery in May. She's still OK to drive, the medical benefit is currently justified for her mental health (she's lost confidence with worsening sight). It's free on the NHS.

Re:It's finally time

[PopeRatzo]

It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well, should be running healthcare and dental care.

Tell that to the people of Norway,New Zealand,Japan,Belgium,United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and Israel, all of whom have had government run health care for at least 20 years, some going back as far as 1938.

And most of those countries have higher-rated health care systems than the US and eleven of those countries have greater levels of economic freedom and social mobility than the US.

So you might want to take your tired tropes to the back yard and put them out of their misery.

Re:It's finally time

[GNious]

Head to Mexico - just across the border dental care seems quite cheap, and often pretty capable.

Re:It's finally time

[Xylantiel]

You have mistaken the role of government in healthcare. Government, by mandate of the people, already requires treatment of acutely ill individuals, and nobody is arguing to change that. The question is then how this is paid for (mandated insurance or socialized medicine), what is more cost-effective (in terms of preventative care), and is earlier treatment sufficiently more humane to be preferable in some cases? Also your "small minority of the population" is simply not small. A good 30-50% of Americans have trouble affording health care, partially because people like you prevent the appropriate management of the cost for the already existing basic universal health care. It's not all or nothing as you imply, a typical successful model is to provide basic coverage by mandate or required insurance, and then individuals with means can pay for other perks like shorter wait times or better rooms.

On the dental care side. If society places value on not having a bunch of snaggle-toothed people around, regardless of their ability to pay for orthodontic care, then the government can similarly intervene in that market on behalf of the public to make it more affordable.

Re:It's finally time

[rs79]

Ayn Rand used meth, not pot.

Re: It's finally time

[O('_')O_Bush]

Hah, you though Americans made fun of the Brits because their teeth were unhealthy. How ignorant. No, Americans make fun of Brits because their teeth are ugly and obviously so.

Re:It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK citizen pays a third per person for health care in comparison to a US citizen, there is 100% coverage of the population, and the health outcomes are better.

Care to explain what's going wrong exactly?

Re:It's finally time

[Ramze]

That is such a naive post, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll bypass the "government doesn't do anything well" BS (firefighters, US Mail, EMS services, public water/sewer systems, uncountable other examples prove you wrong)... But, apparently, every industrialized country other than the USA either has free healthcare or a hybrid system like Australia with a combination of free care plus private.

Let's move on to this mythical health "market" you mention. Markets require competition to work. Most areas only have one or two hospitals within the geographic region which can provide most health care services. That's not a free market... it's a monopoly or oligopoly. Monopolies and Oligopolies require government oversight because they tend to abuse their power. Granted, the Dentistry market is far more competitive than say, thoracic surgery.

Still, Insurance isn't a market either. It's also an oligopoly situation where you have to have one of the major carriers to have health providers ACCEPT the coverage you have -- and picking an insurance carrier may give you perks with one hospital or other health care provider, but none with another, so this also limits your market choices. Health care providers are not required to accept your insurance.

So, let's talk about pricing - you won't find it listed most places. It's complex... it's deceitful - intentionally. If you have no insurance, you have one price. If you have insurance, it's another price. Then, when billed, you pay a different amount and the insurance company pays the rest -- but not actually. You see, the insurance company negotiates the prices. Say you have a bill for $100K. You pay $5K, the insurance company pays $45K, and the rest just goes unpaid, yet considered to be paid in full. Another individual who has no insurance gets the bill for the full amount - OR if the physician knows in advance you have no insurance will sometimes negotiate a different price - sometimes much lower than what they'd have gotten from the insurance company.

Doctors HATE the insurance companies. They have to hire lots of staff for medical coding to report correctly to insurance companies, fight with them over the billing, and often get paid late -if at all. Doctors also have high malpractice insurance bills and high medical school loan bills. Many other countries don't have these issues -- they even send their doctors to medical school for next to nothing - imagine that! It drives the cost of being a doctor down, increases supply of doctors and drives the costs of medical care down along with it.

The USA medical system is a mess. I'm not a doctor myself, but I have many family and friends in the medical field. They would LOVE a single payer system to simplify everything. They could have less staff because there's no need to deal with multiple insurance companies, less confusion on pricing, and more customers as everyone is covered. Government health insurance doesn't have to be government run healthcare - just insurance. Why have thousands of companies complicating everything when one agency could give you insurance right out of your paycheck with your taxes (just like a company benefit would), and you're insured everywhere for everything except cosmetic surgeries beyond dental. But, I digress.

I'm not sure what dental plans you're concerned about. Most don't cover things like crowns and Hollywood veneers. Most cover regular checkups and fillings - maybe braces for kids if you pay extra. That's not a huge burden on the USA economy... not with 15 Trillion in debt - mostly spent on the military.

Re:It's finally time

[Totenglocke]

and our daughter has orthodontic treatment without charge

I have to be "that guy". You were charged - and quite a bit for it, they just didn't hand you a bill after you received the service. When you factor in all taxes (VAT, fuel tax, TV tax, income tax, NHS tax, etc) even the lowest tax bracket in the UK is paying roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

Re:It's finally time

[Totenglocke]

That's a load of crap. Dental insurance (even without an employer plan) is incredibly cheap and covers a thorough cleaning every six months. If you skip the cleanings (which you won't be charged extra for, just the usual monthly insurance payment) then yes, you'll need to get expensive procedures done - but that's your own damn fault for skipping preventative maintenance that wouldn't cost you anything extra.

Re:It's finally time

[Ralph Wiggam]

you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.

58% of Americans have a household income less than $65k.

Re:It's finally time

[Major Blud]

"mostly spent on the military."

Although military spending is a nice chunk of the federal budget, most of it is spent on Social Security and Medicare:

https://static.nationalpriorit...

Re:It's finally time

[jythie]

I suspect the reason so many people believe that the government does not 'function well' is that they do not understand what is function is. It is kinda like complaining how lousy a car is at sailing down a river. Of course it sucks at it, that isn't what it was designed for, and that job is already done well by boats.

Re:It's finally time

[Penguinisto]

Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot. This is largely due to the demographics of these nations, the fact that their defense budgets are largely carried by NATO/Treaty/aid/etc (read: the US is paying for and/or providing a very significant percentage of it, even if indirectly), immigration laws are uber-strict (which cuts down on the flood of low/no-income users of the system), and because each has a relatively low population that is densely packed when compared to the US (which means you don't need so many clinics, doctors, specialties, etc). In spite of this, many of the nations you list are already under moderate to severe economic crisis in spite of that...

Meanwhile, if the US were to adopt such a system, or if the US DoD stopped providing direct/indirect military defense for these nations in order to afford such a system, a whole lot of economies would collapse within 10-15 years, maximum - the economies of both sides would be radically hamstrung under either condition.

Re:It's finally time

[kyrsjo]

While I agree with your point, I would like to point out that dental care is not public in Norway after you are 18 (unless your teeth are falling out from a medical condition / cancer treatment etc.).

Re:It's finally time

[ShanghaiBill]

some going back as far as 1938

Germany started in 1883. It was implemented by that great liberal, champion of the common people, and just really nice guy, Otto von Bismark.

Re:It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot.

That's just incorrect. The British NHS, for example, costs 6.5% of GDP. In the US, we spend over 17% of GDP on health. It's astounding how little value we get for all that extra cost. Then you think of all the layers of bureaucracy in all the insurance providers and some of it makes sense.

Re:It's finally time

[NatasRevol]

That explains the teeth...

Re:It's finally time

[xaxa]

My point was to show there are many options between "everything" and "nothing" provided by the state. I don't really care to discuss it further.

(PS "counselling" is correct English.)

Re:It's finally time

[Chrisq]

and our daughter has orthodontic treatment without charge

I have to be "that guy". You were charged - and quite a bit for it, they just didn't hand you a bill after you received the service. When you factor in all taxes (VAT, fuel tax, TV tax, income tax, NHS tax, etc) even the lowest tax bracket in the UK is paying roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

Rubbish The lowest tax bracket is zero and accounts for income up to £10,600 in 2015/16, from £10,000 in 2014/15. In terms of indirect tax, VAT is not charged on children's clothes or "non luxuary" food, and is 5% for domestic heating and electicity. There are a number of other exemptions and it is on 20% for the rest.

Re:It's finally time

[smithmc]

What's affordable? IIRC mine costs me like $20 a month, and that includes twice-yearly checkups and cleanings and X-rays, plus any work I need done e.g. fillings etc. (except oral surgery which would go under my medical insurance). Doesn't include orthodontia though.

Re:It's finally time

[bev_tech_rob]

Here in the USA Dental health is looked at as a luxury. Dentists fight like hell to keep costs high and insurance crappy.

It's a crime that most americans have almost no dental care they can afford. Yes most. you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.

No kidding.....I owe over $1400 to my dentist AFTER insurance paid last year due to several crowns and root canals I had to have done. Luckily he is very good at working with you and setting up payment plans that you can easily deal with. But I would rather not have that debt hanging over my head if dental insurance was a little better.

Re:It's finally time

[Coren22]

Yes most. you have to count the 90% that make less than $65,000 a year.

In what world do you live? 90% make less than like $200k in the US, not 65k which is near the average household income of $50,502.

http://www.mybudget360.com/how...

$65k and less equates to 66% of the adult population (single person vs household), not 90%.

Re:It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

On the topic of medicine in the US not being a free market, the AMA (for medical doctors) and the ADA (for dentists) are essentially guilds. Very much good has come from their existence, such as standardization of medical education and enforcement of minimal qualifications, but the economics surrounding medicine are also directed almost exclusively by the guild. Supply of practitioners is deliberately limited to keep pay high (this is managed much better by the AMA than the ADA, who prefers a boom-bust cycle that results in dental schools closing and reopening).

Re:It's finally time

[Guy Harris]

The Netherlands have partially abolished government-run health care because it became too expensive.

By "government-run health care" do you mean "government-owned-and-operated hospitals and government-employed doctors" or do you mean "government-run health insurance paying for care from privately-owned hospitals and privately-employed doctors"?

Re:It's finally time

[Guy Harris]

It's nice that you did your Wikipedia homework, but have you actually USED the service in any of these countries to know for a fact that it works to your satisfaction? I've lived in 3 of these countries and I can categorically say you have no clue what you're talking about.

So in which 3 of the 20 countries referred to by the person to which you're replying have you lived, in what fashion did the health insurance system or the health care system not work to your satisfaction, and in what fashion does the system in the US work more to your satisfaction?

Re:It's finally time

[PopeRatzo]

It's nice that you did your Wikipedia homework, but have you actually USED the service in any of these countries to know for a fact that it works to your satisfaction?

Yes. I've gotten various types of health care services in Finland, Italy, the UK and Australia over the course of the past 30 years. No complaints.

However, if you'd like a list of complaints regarding my experiences with health care here in the good old USA prior to 2010, I'd be happy to oblige, but it's a long list.

Re:It's finally time

[PopeRatzo]

Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot.

That's horseshit. Remember, the US, the largest economy in the world has been spending a significantly larger percentage of their GDP on health care than the other countries prior to 2012 (last statistics I could find) and getting poorer outcomes.

Re:It's finally time

[matfud]

cost of dental implants in the UK is much much lower.
for example (if there are no complicating factors)
http://www.evodental.com/prici...

Re:It's finally time

[matfud]

Apart from the American lead actors with bad British accents and glowing white Hollywood fascias.

Re:It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

Utter bullshit. US spends more taxpayer money per capita on healthcare than any other nation. So clearly US could afford the same kind of healthcare system, it's only a matter of political will. National health care (single payer) systems are *cheaper* than what the US does because there's less organizational overhead and corruption. The existing US Medicare system is a hugely successful example of this, providing good health care with minimal overhead/waste in comparison to the "private" sector. If it was extended to cover everybody, we would spend less taxpayer money on healthcare and have a healthier, more productive population. But there are too many people making a good living saying "OMG Teh Communists!" on television for this to ever happen.

Re:It's finally time

[Knuckles]

...and while it's nice that your granny is getting the surgery, I completely fail to see how "lost confidence" is justification for physical surgery, let alone having it become sufficient justification for payment from the public purse.

It's called prevention. If it diminishes the chances that due to lost confidence she will lose her abilities earlier, fall and break her hip requiring more expensive surgery, and require many more years of care, it may well be economically worth it. If helping out your eldery as a matter of course doesn't do it for you, or the fact that life is nicer with less miserable people around you.

Re:It's finally time

[Knuckles]

(...)

I'm not sure what dental plans you're concerned about. Most don't cover things like crowns and Hollywood veneers. Most cover regular checkups and fillings - maybe braces for kids if you pay extra. That's not a huge burden on the USA economy... not with 15 Trillion in debt - mostly spent on the military.

What, really? Jesus.
Because here in Germany I have basic dental in the public health insurance, which covers, basic needs. On top of that I have private insurance for 288 EUR a year (24 per month) which covers:
100% of anything left out by the public insurance for basic work on teeth (like anesthesia in cases the public would not cover).
85% of costs for crowns, gold fillings, implants, etc..
Professional cleaning twice a year (which is around 150 EUR, so if you do that anyway it's already more than half of the cost of private insurance)

Re:It's finally time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, healthcare in general is looked at as a luxury.
USA has the worst healthcare of the modern world, and spends the most money on it. It is a joke.
How the hell they managed to be the most costly and worst is beyond me.

And Britons bitch and moan about the NHS "failing" when it is the 2nd (or 3rd) best healthcare system in the world. And paid by tax.
Well, if you ignore England that is. Englands NHS has been bastardized by the recent elected government and turned more in to a junior version of American healthcare. OH BOY, what's that, several hospitals declared emergencies in recent years where there had been none before. Thanks David Cameron! You sure fixed that NHS! I highly expect the next survey of hospital figures will place it considerably lower thanks to that pompous prick.

David Camerons attempt to shoehorn private healthcare in to public has been an absolute embarrassment. All it has done is increase costs, frustration, overhead, waiting times, and DEATHs.
This system should have never been made country-wide until it was proven successful in a test facility.
But who wants to test things, not like those pricks do. Testing things, that thing that costs money, oh hell no, we're trying to save money here, just roll it out. The more money for my bubbly and steaks sooner, the better.
Not stopping at picking on the vulnerable people, let's pick on even more people who are vulnerable, the welfare system!
The lie of "the welfare system is abused by junkies, lazy people and thieves" was born.
Turns out it was factually wrong, in fact, the welfare system was abused mostly by people in work who were WELL OFF.
The only people the welfare cuts hurt were people genuinely in need of help. Ironically, junkies are the ones still getting benefits because, and I paraphrase someone involved in it, "the junkies are the ones that always look the most ill because they come in shit-faced and half drooling whereas people with chronic illness generally look just irate or annoyed, not so much ill."

Countries need to fight back against abusive governments and force them out or force re-elections. They have absolutely destroyed the NHS and welfare system. Him and his cronies.

Well, this sure went on a tangent. That smug prick just pisses me off so much. Every time I see his face, I want an asteroid to hit it.

Re:It's finally time

[Ksevio]

Although military spending is a nice chunk of the federal budget, most of it is spent on Social Security and Medicare:

That's a point some people have been pushing hard to get out there, but those programs are both funded separately from the rest of the budget so they are really not relevant when looking at spending/debt.

Re:It's finally time

[enzo1]

No, only foolish doctors want single payer; the rest realize the obvious end game-- doctors becoming government slaves, completely dependent, poorly paid and with minimal decision-making capacity for themselves and their patients. The healthcare marketplace should be a FREE market with full price competition, like any other. "Insured everywhere for everything".... so naive. Look at Medicaid and Medicare--impossible to get good care with the former, and doctors dropping coverage for the latter. Good hospitals will become average hospitals; good doctors will become average doctors, because there won't be enough money to maintain high quality care.

Re:It's finally time

[Kabukiwookie]

Yes and the cost of insurance for citizens has gone through the roof since then, while the insurance companies have been making record profits year after year, while at the same time every year that same insurance gets you less and less coverage.

Obviously the market at work.

Capitalism should provide competition in a free market (which itself is a fiction, so the whole concept is flawed to begin with), on top of that it assumes that sellers will provide the least amount of service/product for the maximum amount of money.

See how that works out when healthcare is the service.

Re:It's finally time

[Your.Master]

I don't see how you can site an article that says "only 2.67% of households make more than $200k" in an argument where you imply that 200k is the 90th percentile (true, that's technically "less than like $200k", but 200k is a misleading benchmark).

Your very citation shows the 10th percentile of household income being $118200.

I'm pretty sure the person you were responding to was wrong, and that the 90th percentile mark is considerably higher, but you're equally wrong in the other direction I think. This chart seems to support the idea that the individual income 90th percentil is in the mid-80s: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bmIb...

Re:It's finally time

[St.Creed]

Cost of a crown on top of an implant in The Netherlands, without insurance (so yes, you can come over here and get it, just add some money for flight and hotel): between 1900 and 2500 euro. In total. So for four dental implants WITH CROWN your mother would spend at most 10.000 euro, if she was uninsured. I'm pretty sure this can be negotiated down a bit if she wants four, or a bit higher if she has health issues.

(source: http://www.implantaat.nl/koste...)

In Blegium, it's cheaper (and just as good): http://www.kaakchirurgie-anna....
Yes, that's that's about 2000 euro for 4 implants...

I think you might want to show those prices to your mother's dentist and ask him to reconsider his pricing. Failing that, I'm pretty sure you can get a nice Euro-trip and implants for around 5000 euro total.

Re:It's finally time

[Coren22]

http://www.advisorperspectives...

80% of people make less than $185,206 household income, 95% make less than $322,343, so 90% being around 200k is possible. Household income Personal income.

Re:It's finally time

[Coren22]

The last sentence should read "household income (does not equal) personal income". Slashdot doesn't like the greater than less than signs being used for that purpose.

Re:It's finally time

[PopeRatzo]

I don't want anything from 1938.

You're not very smart, are you?

http://www.rmauctions.com/lots...

Re:It's finally time

[Livius]

It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well, should be running healthcare and dental care.

Maybe the issue is the particular government you're thinking of, rather than what they're running.

Re:It's finally time

[Livius]

The reason that Americans say Brits have bad teeth is because of whiteness and straightness

No, it's because their stereotypes are from World War II. They don't engage the rest of the world as much as they think they do.

Re:It's finally time

[Applehu Akbar]

I'm one of those people who has always wanted a free market in medicine. If consumers could buy medical services as freely as they do electronics, from any market in the world, we would be paying a fraction of today's prices. Yes, there would still be a large component of charity and government assistance in medicine because it's not something that poorer people can voluntarily opt to not buy. But of we did have a free medical market, imagine how much farther those government and charity dollars would go.

But US medicine loves the monopoly cartel model the way it is, because being able to dictate how much their customers will pay is so much more lucrative than competing. So I wish Obamacare on them, and the inevitable Son of Obamacare that we will get for those who still can't afford their care. Bend over, doctors and hospitals, for a generation of socialist medicine. Then come back to us and tell us again how much you hate the free market.

Re:It's finally time

[Applehu Akbar]

If you're looking to save money on dental care, you don't have to go very far. Drive east on I-8 from San Diego along the border, and you will see a huge hotel at a turnoff marked Algodones. It's not a casino, but a border stay for people who can, in a short walk yo the Mexican side, get quality dental care for a fraction of the US price. It's where you get all those necessary procedures that insurance doesn't cover.

Re:It's finally time

[spacepimp]

The same NIST that perverted standards for encryption to weaken it to help make it safer for them to use?

Re:It's finally time

[spacepimp]

MEDICAL TOURISM. Costa Rica is cleaner, and safer and if I recall cheaper.

Re: It's finally time

[riverat1]

You're not paying for SS or Medicare out of line items in your taxes. FICA taxes don't begin to cover those costs, and the shortfall is made up by government borrowing. Those loans are paid back out of the general fund. The government has been lying to you.

How is it that "FICA taxes don't begin to cover those costs" yet at the end of 2011 the SS Trust Fund contained $2.7 trillion? The program is expected to continue to run a surplus until 2021 and the trust fund isn't expected to run out until sometime in the 2030's.

Re:It's finally time

[riverat1]

DMV works great in my state. Maybe you live in a state where the politicians say government can't run anything well then promptly set out to prove it when they get in power.

Re:It's finally time

[Applehu Akbar]

But driving there from San Diego would take you through all that cartelista territory (with who knows how many of those rumored ISIS training camps) that grandparent insisted was the big reason to avoid Mexican dentistry.

Re:It's finally time

[Jack Griffin]

. It's amazing to me the number of people who think the government, who can't seem to run anything well, should be running healthcare and dental care.

It's amazing to me that people still trot out shit like this. Anyone that thinks this should go to a place with little or no government and compare the difference. Even Bill O'Reilly accepts that some services are better off under government management.

Re:It's finally time

[Jack Griffin]

Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot. This is largely due to the demographics of these nations, the fact that their defense budgets are largely carried by NATO/Treaty/aid/etc (read: the US is paying for and/or providing a very significant percentage of it, even if indirectly),

Oh Jesus you seriously aren't that fucking stupid are you? The US has the highest spend per capita on health than any other country on the planet. You spend more, you get less. The fact you also spend the most of Defence is irrelevant, although your spend on education is, as you've clearly demonstrated...

Re:It's finally time

[Jack Griffin]

I have to be "that guy".

What, the stupid guy? We've already had a few of those in this thread already.

You were charged - and quite a bit for it, they just didn't hand you a bill after you received the service. When you factor in all taxes (VAT, fuel tax, TV tax, income tax, NHS tax, etc) even the lowest tax bracket in the UK is paying roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

That's a lie.
The lowest income tax bracket is 0% (under £10,600).
TV License revenue goes directly to TV and radio, not to health services. But even if you include it it's only £150.
Fuel Tax is zero if you don't own a car
NHS Tax, no such thing
VAT is max 20%, but zero for essentials such as food.

So for most people less well off, they have access to free or nearly free health care, completely unlike the US.

Re:It's finally time

[ImprovOmega]

It's hit or miss. Some dentists in Mexico are very capable and reasonably priced. But some of them are hacks with a pretty looking office. My relatives have had it go both ways.

Re:It's finally time

[pnutjam]

There is a need:
http://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/for-two-days-indiana-mission-of-mercy-bridges-insurance-gap

This is how America thinks poors should get dental care. Just line them up like cattle once a year.
I find it shameful, even if it is good that someone is doing it.

Re: It's finally time

[pnutjam]

That's funny, because I could have sworn you were talking about the US system, the one that pays more and has all those issues.

Re:It's finally time

[Bengie]

Paper work is about 50% of the entire cost of health care in the USA. Too many types of insurances and time wasted fighting them.

Re:It's finally time

[Bengie]

Budgeted military spending is a small subset of the entire military spending. If the military needs more money, they just have more printed or someone changes a number on an account.

Re:It's finally time

[PopeRatzo]

Really, you should. Please cite examples of the Federal government of the United States providing quality service in Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Belgium, United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore...

Well, let's see. The US Federal government provided some quality services to the UK, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Cyprus a couple of times last century. Something about a house-painter named Schicklgruber and the Maginot line if I remember correctly.

And South Korea? If the US hadn't provided quality service to South Korea back in the '50s, South Koreans would all be about six inches shorter and hungry as fuck.

Re:It's finally time

[Penguinisto]

Dunno who modded you up, because this bit:

So clearly US could afford the same kind of healthcare system, it's only a matter of political will.

...is crap. We can afford our *current* system, but not a complete socialist-style healthcare system applied to the general population. It will either destroy the federal budget, or the resulting healthcare for individuals will be far worse than what we see now.

Would you like evidence? No problem: Google for "Veterans Administration" if you want an example of what US-government run healthcare looks like.

As someone whose spouse has had to ensure that travesty of an organization, I can tell you first-hand that you most emphatically do not want to go to a government-run hospital or doctor.

Re:It's finally time

[Penguinisto]

*sigh* - go learn the difference between individuals spending money on healthcare, and the US government spending taxpayer money on same. While you're at it, also look up the bureaucratic overhead that a government-run healthcare system would bring (see also the VA Medical System).

Now go back to the kids' table and stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.

Re:It's finally time

[Penguinisto]

GDP != Tax Revenue.

But, you know... many ideologues (and even folks in government) think that they have access to private citizens' money, so... ;)

Re:It's finally time

[Penguinisto]

That's just incorrect. The British NHS, for example, costs 6.5% of GDP.

...now what percentage of tax revenue is it?

Re:It's finally time

[PopeRatzo]

GDP != Tax Revenue.

He specifically said, "The US cannot afford it". Health costs, especially in a system where there is no single-payer in place, can only be measured against GDP. What good is measuring health care costs against tax revenues when tax revenues are not paying for most of health care? You've got individuals paying private insurers paying private doctors.

In the US health care system, the doctors, nurses and hospitals don't work for the government. They don't work for the consumers of health care. They work for private insurance companies. The amount of Federal dollars used to pay for health care is a small fraction of what's spent on health care in the US.

Re:It's finally time

[Agripa]

Why should I have pay for someone to have a pretty smile?

Why should you pay to educate their children?

Re:It's finally time

[Guy Harris]

...is crap. We can afford our *current* system, but not a complete socialist-style healthcare system applied to the general population. It will either destroy the federal budget, or the resulting healthcare for individuals will be far worse than what we see now.

Would you like evidence? No problem: Google for "Veterans Administration" if you want an example of what US-government run healthcare looks like.

As someone whose spouse has had to ensure that travesty of an organization, I can tell you first-hand that you most emphatically do not want to go to a government-run hospital or doctor.

So how about a system wherein the provision of health care services isn't a government monopoly, but you have, for example, either a national insurance system paying for the provision of health care services from private and public entities or a mixture of legally-required insurance provided by regulated non-profit insurance organizations or, for some, private insurance organizations, paying for the provision of health care services from private and public entities?

Re:It's finally time

[Jack Griffin]

*sigh* - go learn the difference between individuals spending money on healthcare, and the US government spending taxpayer money on same.

Yeah maybe you should do the same. The US govt spends more, US citizens on average are wealthier. At which point can the US "not afford it"?

While you're at it, also look up the bureaucratic overhead that a government-run healthcare system would bring (see also the VA Medical System).

Dude, I've lived in four separate countries with government run healthcare, and all four of them provided better care overall than the US. You seem to confusing your poor implementation of govt run services, with the concept of govt run services that has already be proven elsewhere.

Re:It's finally time

[Ramze]

I have lived in multiple states - NC, SC, and TN. I was in and out of the DMV in no time flat each time I moved. Don't know where you live, but maybe your state should invest more in their DMV if you have issues.

I've found TN to be particularly efficient. They have an electronic queue in Knoxville, TN branches, full staff, and no wait times.

Re:It's finally time

[Ramze]

I won't argue with you on the Medicaid/Medicare issue - my uncle tells me all the time the grief the govt gives him - but, his issue isn't the dollar amount so much as the regulations for the coding and paperwork. They have very specific forms that do not correspond well to usual medical coding and billing, and if not completed perfectly, they don't get paid at ALL.

There can NEVER be a FREE market for health care... it's inherently impossible. If you have a life-threatening situation like a heart attack, you must be sent by ambulance to usually the nearest facility and be worked on by the available physician and surgeon. You are in one physical location, and your health care options are tied to that location/region. Each region can only operate so many full health service options like hospitals. This inherently lends itself to a monopoly or oligopoly situation. Insurance COULD, in theory, be a free market, but it is not currently. There are laws preventing the insurance companies from selling nation-wide insurance plans and compete with one another more directly. I am not opposed to that idea, but why bother? We could simply have a federal insurance that says basic care is covered by taxes (who cares if you pay insurers directly or through your taxes? It's still money paid from tax payers to health care workers - and you pay anyway for basic health care for uninsured as most hospitals MUST treat all emergency medical issues whether people can pay or not. That comes out of your pocket from govt subsidies and higher insurance premiums and medical costs anyway)

Everything else in your post regarding good doctors is a fearmongering myth. The doctors I know are good doctors because they love helping people and saving lives, not because of the income. Some even work for doctors without borders and do charity mission work. If you want to help doctors out, help them refinance their student loans - or better yet, subsidize them!

Re:It's finally time

[Ramze]

FedEX and UPS have zero desire to take over the envelope business. You're clueless as to how inexpensive it is to send a letter from Hawaii to Florida via US Mail. Try that via FedEx - even put it in a box first...

The US Mail has a duty to deliver to each and every address for the cost of a stamp - and visit each and every address multiple times per week to not only deliver, but pick up mail. Good luck convincing any corporation that it would be a profitable business plan to compete in that market even if it were allowed.

Re:It's finally time

[Ramze]

um... no.

You are ALREADY paying for everyone using health care that cannot pay for it themselves. Most ERs cannot refuse anyone - even if they just have the sniffles. Hospitals have gone bankrupt because of this. You are paying through medicare/medicaid and through higher insurance premiums and medical fees... because so many never pay, but do recehive service. People who even have insurance have gone bankrupt because of medical fees - it's the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA!

Different systems for different situations. I don't know about where you live, but many places have non-profit, government utilities that generate electricity. It's not single-payer because people pay what they use. Insurance does not and has never worked that way. Everyone pays in and it pays out only to those that need it when they need it in the amount they need it. Obviously it would be regulated to avoid abuse, but no one is going to break their bones just because - hey, they can get them re-set and in a cast for free! Woot!

Your comparison of government run electricity single payer and government run health insurance single payer makes zero sense.

You also fail to take into account that because we don't subsidize basic health care, people who have no insurance tend to have conditions that could have been treatable with a simple cheap checkup, but due to neglect their conditions festered and became expensive to treat -- ended up in the Emergency room and boom -- their huge bill became your bill b/c they can't pay. I'd rather our tax dollars pay for everyone to have regular teeth cleaning than to use them to pay for expensive oral surgeries and teeth removal, for instance.

Please work on your logic skills - they are lacking, you coward

Re:It's finally time

[Ramze]

Ah, I should clarify - I did not mean to imply most of the budget isspent on the military, but most of the DEBT Americans owe went towards the military - specifically IRAQ and Afghanistan wars alone are estimated to be around 3 or 4 trillion... plus the interest on that debt, and of course, yearly military spending (not that I don't think our military is important, but we do spend more than all other nations on Earth combined... and our Navy alone is larger than the next 7 largest Naval fleets combined.)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/...

Bodyly fluids

[Flavianoep]

Too little, too late , I've already started the attack on the Commies.
---Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper

Re:Bodyly fluids

[Guy From V]

SHIT you bastard...I thought I caught this story's title early enough to be the first Ripper quote...I salute you.

Re:Bodyly fluids

[DrStrangluv]

That's why you should only drink distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol.

Re:Bodyly fluids

[udippel]

Wow, ! And that's from you, Strangelove!

Re:Bodyly fluids

[Gruturo]

I salute you and your superior timing, General.

Purity
Of
Essence

Peace
On
Earth

Re:Bodyly fluids

[Purity Of Essence]

At ease, soldier.

After decades of research

[Anonymous Coward]

We've found it takes far less to mind control the population, so we figure we should save some money.

Re:After decades of research

[nathan s]

No, of course not. We've just found a better way to do it that we're not going to tell you about, and we're keeping some fluoride going as a backup measure...;)

Chemtrails Will Make Up the Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The Illuminati Lizard King has mandated that the fluoride content of chemtrails be increased to .5 milligrams per liter to compensate.

Gen. Ripper

[Anonymous Coward]

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

Jenny McCarthy Says It Turned Her Kid

[Anonymous Coward]

Into a grotesque mutant.

Re:Jenny McCarthy Says It Turned Her Kid

[Chris Mattern]

No, he got that from her.

Re:Its about time

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didn't. Some individual countries may have discontinued it, but it's still common in Europe as a whole.

This is about money

[Anonymous Coward]

They will probably try to give this a food-safety spin, but recent studies have confirmed that fluoridation of drinking water has no ill effects. What the government is actually aiming at though is (eventually) ending drinking water fluoridation entirely. While fluoride itself isn't expensive, the installations cost about a 100 million dollars a year. In the current political climate it's only logical that the government thinks consumers should pay for fluoridated products themselves. This is unfortunate however, since even in areas where fluoridated toothpaste is common, fluoridated drinking water is still correlated with better dental health.

Re:This is about money

[Smidge204]

Too much fluoride causes tooth discoloration (fluorosis). It's harmless but unsightly.

But that aside, I wonder what's less expensive: Fluoridation programs, or dental treatment for the extra problems that would arise from stopping fluoridation. That would be an interesting study to thumb through...
=Smidge=

Re:This is about money

[Lumpy]

Handling of the HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID is difficult. It eats through everything, even glass eventually. Tanks need replacement regularly, you have to wear hazmat suits when working around it... Go ahead get a little bit on you... it burns like hell and cant be neutralized.

This is the primary reason coupled with the fact that most kids have easy access to fluoride rinses and toothpaste. No reason to go with a preventative dones and scale back to a maintenance dosage.

Plus the crap is getting expensive to buy and truck. When I worked at a water filtration plant a semi truck load delivery was an expensive event, and that was 15 years ago. Today it's worse with the OMG WE ALL GONNA DIE OSHA standards for safety.

Re:This is about money

[king neckbeard]

Others seem to be posting that there is no solid evidence that the form of fluoride in our water has shown any evidence of improving dental health. So, the cost of the latter would be zero.

Re:This is about money

[Smidge204]

Others seem to be posting that there is no solid evidence that the form of fluoride in our water has shown any evidence of improving dental health.

Well then those people are as wrong as the grammatical structure of that sentence.
=Smidge=

Re:This is about money

[king neckbeard]

If that is true, please post evidence to the contrary. AFAIK, there is no viable evidence of the most common additives contributing in any meaningful way to dental health, but I could be wrong. If all you have is pointing out poor proofreading on my part, then please jump into a vat of hexafluorosilicic acid.

Re:This is about money

[Applehu Akbar]

A fluoridation program means managing for a specified level of fluoride in the water. In town with a high natural level, this can mean taking fluoride out of the water on a constant basis.

Re:This is about money

[Smidge204]

"There is no viable evidence" = "I'm too lazy to look"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Free)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Non-free but synopsis provided)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Non-free but synopsis provided)

And that's just a minute or two of looking. Thousands of studies have been done on fluoride for safety and effectiveness on a wide range of topics, not just public water fluorination. It works, we know how and why it works, it's pretty dang cheap, and it's been hailed as one of the top ten greatest public health achievements.
=Smidge=

Re:This is going to be fun

[geekmux]

Conspiratards are already typing off their fingers.

Perhaps the only conspiracy here is ignorance.

There are already quite a few areas in the US that removed fluoride from the water supply. Many are likely not even aware if their local county does or not.

If they were really concerned...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. about dental health, they limit the amount of Corn Syrup, and HFCS that exists throughout the US food supply!

Sugar is still sugar! It doesn't have to be white and bleached, for it to decay your teeth!

Re:If they were really concerned...

[g0bshiTe]

I realize this is correlation vs causation but have their been any studies linking obesity with the widespread use of corn syrup in place of real sugar?

I know I prefer the taste of soda made with real sugar vs the same brand made with corn syrup. I also have realized since I switched back to a "throwback" run of my favorite soda I am drinking less soda overall. At night I have 2 12 ounce sodas with real sugar vs a few years ago where I'd have 4 - 5 a night of the corn syrup stuff. A typical weekend day and night, I might have 4 throughout the entire day and evening.

Re:If they were really concerned...

[ledow]

Actually, products like crisps (potato chips in the US) are probably worse than even that. It's the metabolisation and fermentation of the food in your teeth that produces the acids the decay them.

And bits of a starchy product like potato stuck in/on your teeth hang around a lot longer and in lot greater quantities than anything you might swig from a can (which washes over your teeth briefly, is swallowed, then stimulates saliva production, all within a few seconds).

You know what's worse than all this stuff? How you eat/drink. If you swash the drink around your mouth, you're elongating the exposure greatly. If you have stuff in/on your teeth (even invisible) then you're doing even more that's bad for your teeth.

Sorry, but by the grand scheme of things, a swig of Coke at lunch isn't doing anything. And virtually every human that's ever lived, ever, has had dental caries at some point - to some extent. It's almost a uniquely human thing, because of certain oral bacteria.

If you cared about dental health, you wouldn't eat this stuff. You don't need government banishment to stop doing that. Or even stop your children doing that. Few people, however, ever go down that route. And if you do, banning crisps (chips) is going to do a lot more for your teeth than anything to do with sugar in drinks, flouride in the water, etc.

Re:If they were really concerned...

[itzly]

If people don't want to drink sugar or corn syrup, there are plenty of alternatives available.

Re:If they were really concerned...

[disposable60]

Who can afford better lobbyists, the ag industry or the dental?

Re:If they were really concerned...

[blue9steel]

I realize this is correlation vs causation but have their been any studies linking obesity with the widespread use of corn syrup in place of real sugar?

When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%. There are two main problems:

1) HFCS replaced Dextrose as the main industrial sweetener, which vastly increased fructose consumption

2) Overall added sugar levels have risen dramatically

The problem is that fructose can only be processed in the liver and when you get too much it increases triglyceride levels in the bloodstream which helps to create leptin resistance, which in turn makes you hungrier. All this is great for profits but not so good for human health. It's not that fructose is bad, it's just that our consumption levels have risen to a point our bodies aren't really ready for.

My lawn

[sls1j]

But now my lawn is going to get cavities! It's a conspiracy!

Drinking water?

[rossdee]

If theres Floride in drinking water wouldn't it have to be listed on the label of the bottle?

And you can buy distilled water in gallons for about the same price as drinking water. 89c or so.

I know there are some people that don't buy bottled water, instead they have a reverse osmosis filter. I think that removes floride and cloride and other salts...

Re:Drinking water?

[Nidi62]

They put fluoride in tap water, not bottled water.

Where do you think bottled water comes from? Notice how almost none of them say "spring water" anymore when pretty much all of them used to? That's because they come from public water sources, just like your tap.

Re:Drinking water?

[rossdee]

"They put fluoride in tap water, not bottled water."

But who drinks tap water?
You brush your teeth with it, shower with it, and use it to do the laundry, but you wouldn't drink it.
(unless you have a filter)

Re:Drinking water?

[itzly]

I guess that most people have enough salt in their diet that this isn't a problem.

Re:Drinking water?

[rossdee]

I don't drink substantial amounts of water, my standard drink is 50% Gatorade, 50% Mt Dew Throwback.

Re:Drinking water?

[khr]

But who drinks tap water?

Me. I drink lots of New York City tap water... At my office in Brooklyn I only drink tap water, just go to the kitchen sink, let it run for a minute, then fill up my cup. Everyone else drinks the bottled water we get, but to me it tastes like a plastic bottle.

At home in Manhattan, I keep a few bottles of water in the fridge and refill them from the tap...

Re:Drinking water?

[MorePower]

Yes but water that's bottled from tap water is filtered first, removing the fluoride (and chlorine and whatever else is in the tap water). That's why it tastes better than the tap water and they are able to get money for it.

Re:Drinking water?

[amck]

Ok, European here. Tap water is heavily legally regulated. It has higher quality standards than bottled water.

Why drink bottled water?

Re:Drinking water?

[itzly]

Regular tap water or bottled water doesn't have much salt in it either. I have a bottle of water here, and it says that it has 3 mg/liter of sodium, while a typical sports drink has around 8500 mg/liter.

Unless you drink a bucket in one sitting, drinking distilled water is fine.

Re:Drinking water?

[JonnyCalcutta]

I drink tap water all day long. I've also canoed in it. (It comes from here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...)

Re:Its about time

[bill_mcgonigle]

Europe banned Fluoride in drinking water since at least the 1980's.

And all their teeth fell out! ;) Just kidding, they got refrigeration too.

The biggest risk is that fluoride is not fluoride. Sodium fluoride dissociates well, but most water supplies use silicofluorides that don't, and they cause heavy metals to cross the blood-brain barrier because the silicofluoride compounds interact biologically.

The dominant fluoridation chemical is actually toxic waste from fertilizer plant smokestack scrubbers that would have a real disposal problem if there weren't municipal water supplies to dump it in.

And those problems don't even touch on osteoporosis, the economic problems with watering one's lawn with fluoridated water, or the moral issue of involuntary medication.

I've got cavity-free kids on well water. Toothpaste with xylitol (birch/watermelon sugar alcohol) is the simple answer. In Scandinavia they give the kids a couple pieces of xylitol gum with their school lunch - far more economical than the US system and with fewer risks. But in the US, government programs are a secular religion that may only ever be tweaked, not found to be foolhardy.

Fluoride in drinking water isn't necessary

[Theovon]

The original theory was that by putting fluoride into drinking water, it'll get into developing teeth, which are chemically altered to be harder. Then they figured out that that doesn't happen; it just reacts directly with teeth in the mouth. But we have fluoride toothpaste that does just as well and doesn't get swallowed quite as much. Then there's the issue of toxicity, which apparently is essentially nil except for people with thyroid problems, where the fluorine can displace iodine.

The conspiracy theorists actually play on the thyroid thing. The idea is that fluoride induces hypothyroidism, which slows people down and makes them more docile, and a docile populace is what governments want, because they rock the boat less. But I think this is a case of opportunism, kinda like how creationists will accept scientific theories whenever they appear to support their delusions. The theory that it was a communist plot predates any hypotheses about thyroid effects. I don't think there's any evidence that fluoride will *induce* thyroid problems.

Re:Fluoride in drinking water isn't necessary

[Theovon]

Regarding lead in the water, you don't know the half of it. People harp on all the wrong contaminants. It's like this bullshut about vaccines and autism. Two (!) cases involving autism and vaccines have gone to court, and in both cases, the "victim" had some preexisting condition. The fact is, the really horrible American diet, with excessive sugar and pesticides and all kids of other crap, has far more impact on developing autism symptoms.

Re:Fluoride in drinking water isn't necessary

[king neckbeard]

I believe the only thing that has been scientifically tied to developing autism is prenatal hormone levels. If you want to know why autistics are disadvantaged in society, consider a world in which your sensory needs are ignored, the self-stimulation that is key to your mental health is discouraged, and decent chunks of the population would rather their children have contract horrible diseases than have a brain work like yours. Granted, in reality, this concern does nothing, but it's a horrible message to be sending to more than 1% of the population.

Re:Fluoride in drinking water isn't necessary

[PPH]

which slows people down and makes them more docile, and a docile populace is what governments want, because they rock the boat less.

The function of which has largely been taken over by chemtrails.

Re:Fluoride in drinking water isn't necessary

[moeinvt]

I don't know about a Communist plot or thyroid problems, but numerous studies have suggested that fluoride lowers IQ:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Besides, the primary mechanism by which fluoride arrests tooth decay is in a surface application. Fluoridated toothpastes usually carry a "Keep out of reach of children" warning. The directions also state that for children under 6, such products should be used in small quantities and with thorough rinsing to ensure that it isn't swallowed.

Drinking fluoride to prevent tooth decay is like drinking sunblock to prevent sunburn.

Re:Fluoride in drinking water isn't necessary

[justthinkit]

Then there's the issue of toxicity, which apparently is essentially nil

Spectacularly wrong.

When you type "fluoride" into Wikipedia, the second auto-suggest is this "Fluoride_toxicity" page.

Then there is this paragraph on an otherwise pro-fluoridation page: "In India an estimated 60 million people have been poisoned by well water contaminated by excessive fluoride... The effects are particularly evident in the bone deformations of children."

At another pro-fluoridation page, we learn that the natural fluoride levels causing all those poisoned East Indians is 3 to 6 mg/l. Just 6 times the original US national standard forced on two-thirds of the population for the past sixty years.

The normal rule of toxicology is a safety factor of 100. About 100 cups of coffee will kill us, for example. One baby aspirin is 1/200 of the lethal (ld50) dose for an infant. Same as one 200 mg Ibuprofen. But a day's maximum ibuprofen dose is 6% of lethal. One cigarette is 1/80th of lethal. The average US salt consumption of 3.5 g/day is 2% of lethal...and common sense tells us we eat too much salt, on average.

Fluoride's ld50 is 50 mg/Kg. 8 glasses of water is about 2000 grams. Fluoridate at 1 mg/l, we get 2 mg of fluoride just from the water. That is 4% of lethal. And does not include at least 15 other sources of fluoride in our diet.

Stats in the last two paragraphs drawing from "Toxic: How Science Measures Harm"

tldr? Fluoride is more toxic than lead and almost as toxic as arsenic - common knowledge

Saying that something more toxic than lead has "essentially nil" toxicity is my idea of wrong.

So that explains Baltimore!

[Immerial]

Hmmm, is this tin foil hat getting a little tight or is it me? [passes out]

Re:Its about time

[ledow]

[Citation required]

Don't conflate "some European countries" with "the whole of Europe including the UK", for example.

Re: Its about time

[Anonymous Coward]

That tells me you understand neither water fluoridation nor air pollution.

Commies

[shemyazaz]

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

now Americans have access to more sources

[wisnoskij]

"now Americans have access to more sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses" I am pretty sure we have had these for decades now...

Re:now Americans have access to more sources

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now", as opposed to 1962

Re:now Americans have access to more sources

[BonThomme]

yeah, don't want to rush to undo the thing you rushed to do...

Re:Its about time

[BonThomme]

"Out of a population of about three-fourths of a billion, under 14 million people in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country

You might ask yourself why you've embraced a myth.

Re:Its about time

[BonThomme]

not to mention people who are comfortable in their ignorance

Re:This is going to be fun

[TWX]

Conspiratards are already typing off their fingers.

At least they're not going on about attacking the communists over their precious bodily fluids...

Government Conspiracy.

[jimbob6]

Oh on! There taking the fluoride out of our drinking water! It's a government conspiracy to reduce oral hygiene in rural areas. This will help prop up the 1% by increasing the wealth disparity. It will also help kill off the poor by allowing more bacteria to grow in the water. not do mention deaths from oral infections. Those bastards won't stop until were all dead!

Just for context

[avandesande]

I couldn't find a better map, but fluoride can always be found in meaningful amounts naturally in groundwater.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

Re:Just for context

[dwillden]

Not everywhere. In Utah for example a couple smaller cities in the southern end of the state have naturally fluoridated water but the rest of the state has to fluoridate. Those two cities with natural supplies had a much lower incidence of cavities than the rest of the state until artificial fluoridation started. Now the levels are about the same. My father was born and lived the first few years of his life in one of those cities. He has never had a cavity. Me, not so lucky, I've paid for more than a couple sports cars for my various dentists.

Re:Just for context

[avandesande]

Yeah my brother and sister were 5 years older than me and didn't get flouridated water and had many cavities- I didn't get one until I was 17. A difference though between meaningful and enough ;-)

Re:Just for context

[drinkypoo]

I couldn't find a better map, but fluoride can always be found in meaningful amounts naturally in groundwater.

I use a RO filter, you insensitive clod! I don't even care what's in my water, unless it's so severe I can't bathe in it. And I use a spin-down filter, a spun filter, and a carbon filter before that happens anyway.

It's sad that you need to filter your municipal drinking water before you can drink it, though, especially when that's in part because they added nasty crap to it.

How much tap water should one drink?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been able to get a straight answer on how much tap water one should drink to achieve the benefits of flouridation. Is it a glass a day? Two? Once a week? How much is enough?

Re:Neurotoxicity of flouride

[ledow]

The guy who posted junk about MMR vaccinations causing autism was also fired.

Should we believe them too, just to be contrary to expectations?

Just get rid of it

[gerardrj]

Fluoride in water always sounds good to people who want "better smiles" but it's 99% a waste of the money spent:

1. The version of fluoride they put in the water (Hexafluorosilicic acid) is not shown to help with dental decay issues. Sodium Fluoride is the chemical the ADA studies and recommends for toothpaste and dental products.

2. Hexafluorosilicic acid is a product manufactured from industrial waste in the aluminum industry and is considered a toxic substance. If industry hadn't conned municipalities in to putting it in the water supply as a "fluoride source" it would cost them a good chunk of change to dispose of the stuff. (Look up ALCOA and fluoride).

3. Consumption of unfiltered tap water, I'd say, is just about zero. I know no-one that drinks any substantive quantity of tap water that the fluoride content in it would ever have any clinical effect. Almost any filter designed to remove impurities will remove the fluoride from tap water.

4. Even if people were drinking only tap water, over 95% of the water used in an average municipality is very consumed by any living thing. It washes cars, waters lawns, bathes people, flushes toilets, cools industrial equipment, etc.

5. When I had this discussion with my town a few years ago asking them to provide numbers they told my it cost $63,000 a year in product and personnel to run the fluoridation system for 29.5 million gallons of potable water. That sounds like very little, .2 cents ($.002) per thousand gallons or an average of about $.30 per family per month. Sure when you make the numbers small it doesn't look like much, but think about what $63,000 a year gets if directed an other programs in a town. Another teacher or two? Extended library hours on the weekends? A new after school program?

6. No-one, I mean I searched hard, has studied the rate of change in a community pre and post fluoridation of tap water since an initial study of Grand Rapids and Muskegon in 1945. A study that was ended prematurely but touted as a success anyway despite its very unscientific lack of compensating for outside factors not related to the study itself and the "control" changing programs during the study.

7. The Grand Rapids "study" was based upon Sodium Fluoride, which again is not what we put in the water today. So even if the result was positive the hexafluorosilicic acid used today has never been studied for prevention of tooth decay in municipal water supplies and is a very different chemical compound just like Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are very different chemicals. Search for

8. There is no version of any type of fluoride that is indicated by the FDA for the prevention of tooth decay. The municipal water companies are adding an non-FDA approved and unregulated drug to our water supply. The other substance added to water supplies (chlorine to be simple) is approved by the FDA for water and food sanitation.

As you can see, there is simply no supporting truth to the argument that fluoride in municipal water prevents tooth decay. It does cost a significant amount of money, and almost no-one drinks the fluoridated water anyway.

Do your own research. You will come to the same conclusion: municipal water fluoridation is based on lies, it's a waste of money, it doesn't work and it may actually cause harm to public health.

Re:Just get rid of it

[dwillden]

Funny, medical experts disagree with you. So please post your training so we can compare it with that of the deputy Surgeon General.

Re:Just get rid of it

[drinkypoo]

Logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

You can look up his claims and either agree with them or not, but you didn't do that at all.

Re:Just get rid of it

[jez9999]

3. Consumption of unfiltered tap water, I'd say, is just about zero.

Interesting - that sounds like a regional thing. Over here in the UK it's not unheard of to filter your tap water but it's pretty rare.

Re:Just get rid of it

[0xdeadbeef]

Fallacy fallacy, appeal to fallacy.

I suppose this means I win.

The anti-fluoride people are cranks and we're under no obligation to entertain them. Like creationists, merely arguing with them gives them more credibility than they had before.

Re:Just get rid of it

[jonadab]

You should move to Galion. You'd be happy here. We're under some kind of exotic grandfather clause from Hell that has prevented us from ever joining the twentieth century and getting fluoride in our water, even to this day. So we don't have it.

And actually, if you can get past the crazy high dental bills and somewhat low educational standards, Galion *is* a fairly nice place to live, in many other respects.

Re:Just get rid of it

[gerardrj]

Why is it the "cranks" are all asking for scientific study or proof and the "sane" ones are all saying "trust we know it works, because we know" and quoting each other in support?

Do you know that for that $63,000 a year you could provide fluoride rinse or tablets to every at-risk kid in a population about 3x the size served by municipal water fluoridation? The rinses and tables have been studied and proven effective and they all use sodium fluoride.

Re:Just get rid of it

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of rigorous peer reviewed scientific studies, but the cranks refuse to accept to them. Just like the 911 Truthers won't accept anything other than their narrative.

Re:Just get rid of it

[Jack Griffin]

1. The version of fluoride they put in the water

Who is they? In my country we use different types of flouride depending on location.

2. Hexafluorosilicic acid is a product manufactured from industrial waste in the aluminum industry and is considered a toxic substance. If industry hadn't conned municipalities in to putting it in the water supply as a "fluoride source" it would cost them a good chunk of change to dispose of the stuff. (Look up ALCOA and fluoride).

Lies. It's only becomes an issue in gas form, which is going to be hard when saturated 1 ppm in water.

3. Consumption of unfiltered tap water, I'd say, is just about zero. I know no-one that drinks

Good thing that science uses techniques other than your personal experience. This research found at least 25% of bottled water contained tap water. How does that fit into your experience now?

4. Even if people were drinking only tap water, over 95% of the water used in an average municipality is very consumed by any living thing. It washes cars, waters lawns, bathes people, flushes toilets, cools industrial equipment, etc.

And?

5. When I had this discussion with my town a few years ago asking them to provide numbers they told my it cost $63,000 a year

You didn't mention how many people in your town. If $63000 save 60 people's teeth from rotting then I'd say it's a net gain. Average cost for fluoridation is $1 per person per year. Trivial when you consider the cost of dental care.

6. No-one, I mean I searched hard, has studied the rate of change in a community pre and post fluoridation of tap water

Ask and you shall receive: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/e...

7. The Grand Rapids "study" was based upon Sodium Fluoride, which again is not what we put in the water today. So even if the result was positive the hexafluorosilicic acid used today has never been studied for prevention of tooth decay in municipal water supplies and is a very different chemical compound just like Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are very different chemicals. Search for

So use another study instead, or better, conduct your own.

8. There is no version of any type of fluoride that is indicated by the FDA for the prevention of tooth decay. The municipal water companies are adding an non-FDA approved and unregulated drug to our water supply. The other substance added to water supplies (chlorine to be simple) is approved by the FDA for water and food sanitation.

As you can see, there is simply no supporting truth to the argument that fluoride in municipal water prevents tooth decay. It does cost a significant amount of money, and almost no-one drinks the fluoridated water anyway.

Do your own research. You will come to the same conclusion: municipal water fluoridation is based on lies, it's a waste of money, it doesn't work and it may actually cause harm to public health.

$1 per person is not significant. You probably spent more on your membership fees to the Tinfoil Hat Convention.

Re:*shrug*

[ColdWetDog]

Ripper: Mandrake?
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have, Jack.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this Earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that 70 percent of you is water?
Mandrake: Good Lord!
Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

Mod parent up.

[bussdriver]

spot on!

Decades of fouride tapering needed

[laughingskeptic]

I believe back in the 90's activists in some U.S. cities got their cities to stop adding fluoride to the supplies. Bad mineral exchanges immediately started to occur in the piping because of the accumulated minerals in the pipes which included a fluoride component started reacting with the water that no longer contained fluoride causing the water to become contaminated by minerals other than just fluoride. The water not only tasted bad, it was determined that it was not safe to drink.

It takes decades for the minerals in the piping to accumulate and it will take decades to slowly taper fluoride away if we want to avoid unintended consequences. I know the mineral content of water varies widely across supply sources so some cities may have no related problems and some could have severe problems.

Re:misreading

[blue9steel]

So if drinking it is so good for you, why do you rinse and spit at the dentists office instead of rinse and swallow?

Re:Its about time

[rs79]

"And those problems don't even touch on osteoporosis"

Which fluoride is used as a therapeutic treatment for. The smart money would be on taking other minerals as well. Fluoride by itself just increases the rate of bone fixin' you need minerals in the blood so it has something to fix with.

Did you mean: fluoride osteoporosis

Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis
BL Riggs, SF Hodgson, WM O'Fallon - New England journal , 1990 - Mass Medical Soc
Abstract Although fluoride increases bone mass, the newly formed bone may have reduced
strength. To assess the effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in osteoporosis, we
conducted a four-year prospective clinical trial in 202 postmenopausal women with ...
Cited by 1153 Related articles All 9 versions Cite Save

Effect of the fluoride/calcium regimen on vertebral fracture occurrence in postmenopausal osteoporosis: comparison with conventional therapy
BL Riggs, E Seeman, SF Hodgson - New England journal , 1982 - Mass Medical Soc
Abstract We assessed the rates of vertebral fracture in patients with postmenopausal
osteoporosis. Forty-five patients were not treated (91 person-years of observation); 59 were
treated conventionally, with calcium (alone or combined with estrogen) or vitamin D or ...
Cited by 583 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save

Effect of combined therapy with sodium fluoride, vitamin D and calcium in osteoporosis
J Jowsey, BL Riggs, PJ Kelly, DL Hoffman - The American journal of , 1972 - Elsevier
Abstract Fluoride administration in both man and animals has been shown to stimulate new
bone formation. However, the bone is poorly mineralized, and osteomalacia and secondary
hyperparathyroidism frequently occur. In this study we investigated the effect of variable ...
Cited by 297 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save

Risk-benefit ratio of sodium fluoride treatment in primary vertebral osteoporosis
N Mamelle, R Dusan, JL Martin, A Prost, PJ Meunier - The Lancet, 1988 - Elsevier
Abstract The risk-benefit ratio of combined fluoride-calcium therapy in primary vertebral
osteoporosis was examined prospectively in patients with at least one vertebral fracture. 257
patients were randomised to receive sodium fluoride 25 mg twice daily plus elemental ...
Cited by 245 Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save

Horizontal Fracturing

[PopeRatzo]

How about we cut down on the benzene in our drinking water first?

Not before time

[jez9999]

Look at the kind of thing this is doing to our drinking water.

We have to get the message out about this! Fluoride and other pollutants are making our water look like unicorn piss.

New research shows that...

[GoddersUK]

...contrails are for more effective, and cheaper too!

People getting (got) to stupid?

[koan]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ne...

It's about time

[omnichad]

My hometown was guilty of too much fluoride. Thankfully I missed out on the horrible brown fluoride stains that a lot of other people seemed to have. There is such a thing as too much. My teeth were mostly developed before I moved there, but I do have just a hint of the white streaks of mild fluorosis.

Another tall tale...

[s.petry]

Distilled water is not "better" for you, primarily because it lacks minerals that your body needs to function. A little iron is good for the body, as is a little zinc, potassium, sodium, etc.. etc... Many of these things are lacking in foods for various reasons (over processing, soil composition in industrial farming, simply poor diets, etc..)

I agree with the fluoride part, we have that in all kinds of dental products and visits. I have read numerous articles debunking the myth that distilled water is better for you.

Chloramine and lead pipes!

[itsenrique]

I'm more concerned about this where I live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... They have switched over a majority of municipalities to chloramine from chlorine and there is a good body of evidence it can do really bad things. Not directly, but by interacting chemically in different ways than chlorine did.

Re:misreading

[WaffleMonster]

Cue the pseudoscience nutcases who'll cite this as "proof" that fluoridated water is toxic to our chakras or something.

What is the difference between a crackpot spouting nonsense and a skeptic spouting ad hominem nonsense? Neither activity appears to communicate any useful information of any kind.

Why

[nospam007]

Since nobody drinks tapwater anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Re:Why

[mars-nl]

Here, in the Netherlands, all people drink tap water, except when in restaurants. This of course has to do with the fact you can charge 2 euro for a glass of tap water while people will feel ripped off if you charge that for a glass of tap water. There are movements going on to persuade bars, restaurants to also serve tap water for environmental reasons. Bottled water is a huge waste of resources (in countries where the tap water is as good or better as bottled water).

By the way, my tap water, which is pumped out of the ground about 2 km from here, contains 0.12 mg/l fluoride (according to the water company).

On flouridation of water & prescious bodily fl

[Mof-Tan]

This explains the whole conspiracy:
https://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM

Thank you Dr. Strangelove!

Re:Its about time

[bill_mcgonigle]

I tried to point out the difference between sodium fluoride and silicofluorides but you just heard 'fluoride'. Of course studies will use sodium fluorides - because that's the safer one. Silicofluorides interact across calcium channels and dissociated fluoride ions don't. Meanwhile about 80% of municipal water supplies use silicofluorides.

Yes it does make a difference.

[denzacar]

When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%.

HFCS 55 - one used in sodas, is 55 parts fructose, 42 parts glucose.
Sucrose - plain sugar, is 50 parts fructose and 50 parts glucose.

Our brains only measure the glucose intake, cause that is the sugar we start burning the moment it hits the bloodstream. We even absorb it directly through the oral cavity - hence oral glucose gel for diabetics.
When we hit optimal glucose the brain tells the body it had enough.

So, if optimal glucose is (some) 100 parts, that means that using sucrose, one would take in 100 parts of fructose and 100 parts of glucose.
To get to the same level of glucose satiety (those same 100 parts) with HFCS 55, one would take in 131 parts of fructose for every 100 parts of glucose.

Then all that fructose, as Al Green puts it, gets taken to the liver.

Re:Its about time

[bill_mcgonigle]

In scandinavia, kids are also given fluorine pills

With their school lunches? Baloney.

Xylitol has very little - if any - effect on dental health. It's just a sweetener that is not sugar (does not cause karies).

Nope - plaque uptake the xylitol and try to process it as a sugar and fail, exhausting their metabolites and ultimately starving off. Here's the most cited link on PubMed but you're welcome to search all the others, including more recent ones.

The schools aren't investing in the program because somebody's brother owns a chicklet factory - they've demonstrated success with it.

Source: I read peer reviewed real scientific reports.

Except the ones on the topic that are easily to find?

Re: This is going to be fun

[Chalnoth]

False. http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fl...

Re:Because they can

[Coren22]

https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

There is your refutation. They do sell bottled water with fluoride in it, it is for mixing with baby formula.

Fluoride in drinking water

[The Grim Reefer]

Well this should make the John Birch Society happy at least. ;-)

More fluoride in your food since 2004...

[Uncle_Meataxe]

Another reason the feds may be lowering the fluoride standard is that we're getting more in our food recently. In 2004 and 2005, EPA registered sulfuryl fluoride for control of insect pests in harvested foods such as cereal grains, dried fruits, nuts, cocoa beans, etc. Sulfuryl fluoride breaks down to fluoride when it is applied and can leave fluoride residues on treated food. More info here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/....

Does Anybody Drink Tap Water?

[sudon't]

Does anybody still drink tap water? They ought to be adding fluoride to bottled water.
But then, you have the problem of who to blame the conspiracy on, since Communist plots have gone out of fashion.

Re:Its about time

[Megol]

Xylitol is a natural substance and not an "invention".
The fluorine pills thing sounds like a myth (maybe because it is) - the toothpaste use have made extra supplements disadvantageous except for some risk groups.

Re:Its about time

[Megol]

UK isn't part of Europe - it is a (bad) part of USA. ;)

You do know that it's the F- ion, right?

[Overzeetop]

You know that what you're looking for is the flouide ion, right - that's what strengthens teeth, not the other parts of the chemistry? And that both sodium floride and Hexafluorosiliic acid both dissociate in water to release F- ions? And that half of the free flourine in water is naturally occurring? And the pitchers and counter top/faucet filters don't remove flourine (it generally requires reverse osmosis)?

Re:You do know that it's the F- ion, right?

[king neckbeard]

If half of the fluorine is natural, wouldn't we get roughly the same health benefits if people drank about twice as much water?

Re:Its about time

[dunkelfalke]

Europeans prefer to fluoridate table salt, not tap water.
It is, I think, a better idea.

Re:This is going to be fun

[geekmux]

yup, and it cost my significantly; both of my daughters got cavities due to it.

Yup. Must have been the flouride in the drinking supply that caused that.

Couldn't have possibly been the few dozen other factors that come into play that ultimately result in a cavity.

Especially in children, as they're such a dedicated, reliable group of humans, and perform activities like teeth brushing flawlessly, twice a day every day, including flossing (otherwise known as all that shit humans ignore after visiting their dentist)

Re:This is going to be fun

[Applehu Akbar]

On planet Earth, systemic fluoride is the most effective kind, because it gets built into tooth structure. If you have to live in a place like Afghanistan or Oregon, topical fluoride (the kind in toothpaste) is better than nothing.

Mod parent down for citing known crackpot site

[Prune]

interact biologically [globalresearch.ca]

globalresearch.ca is a well-known crackpot and conspiracy theory outlet. Among various outrageous articles and radical political views, they even became a channel for pro-Russian propaganda in regards to the war in Ukraine. Anyone who cites information from the same outlet that produced works of journamlism like North Korea, a Land of Human Achievement, Love and Joy is a fucking tool.

Re:Its about time

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Well, at least in northern Europe we add iodine to table salt. Don't know that we add much fluoride.