Originally Posted by Nozza
Yes I read the abstract. It concluded "Water fluoridation, where technically feasible and culturally acceptable, remains a relevant and valid choice as a population measure for the prevention of dental caries."
It's all very well you "wagering" that all the research comes from interested parties but that's not really good enough. That was my point in the first place. You were dismissing it on the basis that it was probably funded by a pressure group but were not going to bother to see if that was true. That doesn't seem very sensible to me.
I'll ignore all the rubbish about lemmings etc, it's not relevant. I won't get into mercury at this point as it will only confuse matters.
Yes fluorine is toxic but so is everything on the planet. Chlorine is toxic yet makes up half of salt. That alone is not reason enough to avoid it.
My one and only point with my comment was this: you cannot just dismiss evidence on one particular basis without bothering to find out if that basis even exists.
Ok fair enough, you may not be well versed in the fluoride controversy. Many health organizations and health advocates oppose fluoridating water supplies because the mechanism of action is based solely on topical applications. Therefore drinking sodium flouride is effective only insomuch that it enters the mouth upon consumption.
What I didn't get into b/c i assumed was obvious, was that drinking fluorine ions in virtually any form is toxic. Fluorine is not a nutrient, it is not required for the human body at all. All available data is in agreement on this, however the debate is often about acute toxicity. a teaspoon of toothpaste will not kill you, it will probably have virutally zero noticeable effect. the LD50 is like 70kg to kilo of bodyweight or something like that, about 4 grams of it will kill someone average sized; there is enough fluoride in tube of toothpaste to kill a small child.
Much like the aspartame debate, sodium fluoride ultimately revolves around the accumulated toxicity. Of which there is very little research or science on. This ignorance is what allows fluoride to be dumped into our water supply. Now, we know that accumulated toxicity exists because of skeletal flurosis. its just not linked to the amount found in a glass of tap water or a bit of toothpaste. However for unheatlhy people it could be devastating if the accumaltive toxicity is even halfway as suspected.
So while there is no real hard scientific evidence that water fluoridation carries life threatening or even health threatening effects, there is a wealth of anecdotal and hypothetical evidence to suggest it does. Even with all that said, it should be obvious that since no ppm are needed for human life and with the risk of toxicity even at relativly low doses, it needs to be avoided.
Furthermore, the mechanism in which fluoride works topically is to reduce acid in the mouth thereby decreasing caries and promoting health. Yet sodium bicarbonate is far superior, cheaper, and safer in this task; with thousands of years of safe use. So if i dismiss what seems to be out of hand, know that the people lobbying for fluoridation would need to find other ways to safely get rid of their toxic waste by product, such as aluminum and fertilizer manufacturers, instead of selling it for a profit. The connection is in your face obvious.
Finally, the "Aim" of the abstract was to " present a summary of the evidence from systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety
of water fluoridation."
It wasn't as if the paper was trying to discover if it were hazardous but to provide a summary on the agreeable sources to its "effectiveness and safety." And their
sources were meager at best.