Slashdot Mirror
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.
It's finally time we embraced "The Big Book of British Smiles" on this side of the pond!
Too little, too late , I've already started the attack on the Commies.
---Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
We've found it takes far less to mind control the population, so we figure we should save some money.
Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
Into a grotesque mutant.
No they didn't. Some individual countries may have discontinued it, but it's still common in Europe as a whole.
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.
.. 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!
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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=
Hmmm, is this tin foil hat getting a little tight or is it me? [passes out]
[Citation required]
Don't conflate "some European countries" with "the whole of Europe including the UK", for example.
"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.
Conspiratards are already typing off their fingers.
At least they're not going on about attacking the communists over their precious bodily fluids...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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!
I couldn't find a better map, but fluoride can always be found in meaningful amounts naturally in groundwater.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
love is just extroverted narcissism
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.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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.
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.
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
False. http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fl...