Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fluoride in Water
#16
Do you guys think it’s really a large number of people who do not drink tap water? I would expect it’s a minority. It’s a different concern entirely that that minority might be growing.

Andy, when you say “I speculate that the main group's that would see the largest benefit of fluoridation don't even drink tap water,” which groups are those? My understanding is that it’s children who benefit from our added fluoride. If brushing your teeth or visiting the dentist gives your teeth sufficient fluoride, well…we should understand that unfortunately not all children have the opportunity to do either as often as they should.

The Fluoride Alert Network may well be a good source of data, but when linking to it it’s probably a good idea to say what the organization actually is. According to them, they seek to “broaden awareness of the toxicity of fluoride.” Maybe some of their links and facts are really good ones, but it’s obviously not balanced.
Reply


#17
(12-21-2016, 10:34 AM)Andy Wrote: If people don't want fluoride added to their water, they shouldn't be forced too. I don't really understand why there is such a vocal pro-fluoridation group. You can get the same benefits very easily by just brushing your teeth, so you aren't missing out on anything.

I'd be interested to see the demographics of tap water use too. I speculate that the main group's that would see the largest benefit of fluoridation don't even drink tap water.

This is confusing personal liberties with social good.  Individuals can reap the same benefits by regularly brushing their their teeth, but society as a whole gains benefit from fluoridating water which are not achievable through promoting brushing.
Reply
#18
(12-21-2016, 11:02 AM)MidTowner Wrote: The Fluoride Alert Network may well be a good source of data, but when linking to it it’s probably a good idea to say what the organization actually is. According to them, they seek to “broaden awareness of the toxicity of fluoride.” Maybe some of their links and facts are really good ones, but it’s obviously not balanced.

Quite.

Wikipedia has a fairly balanced article on water fluoridation, with plenty of references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
Reply
#19
(12-21-2016, 11:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is confusing personal liberties with social good.  Individuals can reap the same benefits by regularly brushing their their teeth, but society as a whole gains benefit from fluoridating water which are not achievable through promoting brushing.

This is exactly the same thing as OAS/CPP.  Individuals can save their own money (and many people would prefer to do so) instead of the government taking it from them and investing it for them .  But the reality is that many, many people would not save for retirement, so we really should do it for them.
Reply
#20
(12-21-2016, 10:53 AM)BrianT Wrote: Here's some good data. http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/health_database/

No bias whatsoever from that website... How about websites without a specific agenda like:

United States CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html
Health Canada - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/env...or-eng.php
Reply
#21
(12-21-2016, 12:33 PM)BrianT Wrote: It seems like there is a single focus on dental health by those organizations, while ignoring the other health effects of ingesting a carcinogen over a period of time.

Carcinogen you say?

http://www.cancer.ca/en/prevention-and-s...?region=on
Reply
#22
(12-21-2016, 10:34 AM)Andy Wrote: If people don't want fluoride added to their water, they shouldn't be forced too. I don't really understand why there is such a vocal pro-fluoridation group. You can get the same benefits very easily by just brushing your teeth, so you aren't missing out on anything.

I'd be interested to see the demographics of tap water use too. I speculate that the main group's that would see the largest benefit of fluoridation don't even drink tap water.

Agreed. Buy some toothpaste, brush regularly and go to the dentist every 6 months. Can't afford a dentist, go to one of the Region's free dental clinics.
Reply


#23
(12-21-2016, 05:28 PM)Watdot Wrote:
(12-21-2016, 10:34 AM)Andy Wrote: If people don't want fluoride added to their water, they shouldn't be forced too. I don't really understand why there is such a vocal pro-fluoridation group. You can get the same benefits very easily by just brushing your teeth, so you aren't missing out on anything.

I'd be interested to see the demographics of tap water use too. I speculate that the main group's that would see the largest benefit of fluoridation don't even drink tap water.

Agreed.  Buy some toothpaste, brush regularly and go to the dentist every 6 months.  Can't afford a dentist, go to one of the Region's free dental clinics.

Don't have time?  Make time?  Don't have transportation?  Make transportation?

Everyone is told to do this.  And yet the statistics still show that fluoridating water is beneficial.  The facts matter, blaming people for stats doesn't help anyone.  You cannot fix people, you can fluoridate the water.
Reply
#24
(12-21-2016, 12:33 PM)BrianT Wrote: It seems like there is a single focus on dental health by those organizations, while ignoring the other health effects of ingesting a carcinogen over a period of time.

The dose is the poison.

Unless you’re a homeopath of course ;-)

Yeah, I’m quite sure the same (type of) people who were responsible for building our sewage and water filtration systems would just blunder ahead and put a dangerous level of something into the water system without checking the safety.
Reply
#25
Dihydrogen Monoxide is pretty lethal too. LD50 of it is only 190grams/kilogram in mice!
Reply
#26
Not to mention it corrodes metal, can carry electrical current, and in both its gaseous and solid states can burn skin.

Won't someone PLEAAAASEEEE think of the children?!
Reply
#27
(12-22-2016, 01:36 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: Not to mention it corrodes metal, can carry electrical current, and in both its gaseous and solid states can burn skin.

Won't someone PLEAAAASEEEE think of the children?!

... and my goodness you can drown in it! How can such a dangerous liquid be freely distributed! It should be banned for the safety of all! Tongue
Reply
#28
Insurance companies HATE it
Reply


#29
(12-22-2016, 03:25 PM)JoeKW Wrote: Insurance companies HATE it

While not as deadly as Dihydrogen Monoxide, it does deserve recognition...

   

Coke
Reply
#30
(12-23-2016, 03:42 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(12-22-2016, 03:25 PM)JoeKW Wrote: Insurance companies HATE it

While not as deadly as Dihydrogen Monoxide, it does deserve recognition...

Oh yes!  Just one of those is enough to make dihydrogen monoxide what it is!  We need to make this go viral!
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links