Move over fluoride, here comes Calgary's clean water!

[MarchHare]

Have you noticed that in the decades since we have been consuming these by-products/chemicals that North Americans, from a public health standpoint, are the unhealthiest people on the planet?

The disease and obesity is off the charts, to the point now that this generation will not out-live their parents. But let's not question fluoride, we need that stuff....

[Hack&Lube]

If Mikey is a parody character, he puts a tremendous amount of effort into it. I applaud your devotion!

Has anybody heard from dissentower, the exterminate all bears dude, and Chris Lindberg (conspiracy theories about the secret world economic order) lately? They should get together.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Hey are these people "ideologically driven", or "quacks"?

Dr. Dean Burk

Dr. C. Heyd

Dr. W. Marcus

I only briefly researched them but the first two seem to be two of the champions of the anti-fluoridation movement but they were mostly professionally active from the 1940s-1970s and I think they are both dead now (from fluoride no doubt!). They have credentials and held prestigious positions but I don't think their competencies in those positions had anything to do with fluoridation and those were merely their own professional opinions. How about a modern post-1990s study from a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of two dead guys who practiced medicine 50 years ago?

The last guy was fired from the EPA in 1990 for his comments about fluoridation. It seems his colleagues and superiors thought he was out of touch (even though we know the freemasons were the ones who ordered it).

Seems like their professional opinions regarding fluoride were in the minority amongst their peers and not directly related to any specific ac-creditable studies but I may be wrong on that.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

So we should sit by and just appreciate the government force unknowns into everything we consume?

They are not unknowns, they are knowns.

If you personally take issue with what is in the food supply then you should take steps to eat and drink whatever you feel is "natural" or "organic" and avoid tap water. That's your prerogative. Governments and scientists around the world have deemed fluoridated water safe for decades and it is a simply bit of preventative medicine that helps millions of people.

[Mark]

I think there is enough proof with the example of Europe. With the stereotypical British jokes aside, most of Europe has removed fluoride for 20-30 years already and the statistics show no change in tooth decay rates. So if it isn't doing anything, why put it in? I think we're just facing the usual change=evil Albertan mindset. While I do want a choice if fluoride is put in my water, I am surprised the Calgary council made the decision themselves. Anyone that wants fluoride in their water can go get a prescription and add it themselves as it's much harder to remove for those that don't want it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Why would they hate it?

More dental caries = more business = more money

Because people often choose a profession not simply because they make lots of $$, but because they care about it, they have a passion for it.

They want to see kids not have to go through the pain and cost of dental procedures.

This "more business = more money" style of rhetorical argument only makes sense to the "X is a conspiracy to make people Y so they can make more $" crowd.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Hey are these people "ideologically driven", or "quacks"?

No one is immune from ideological drives, that's why we have science, to avoid the ideological stuff.

Are they quacks? I don't know, probably not, and really it doesn't matter. If what they say had merit, they can publish it in top level journals which will have weight and be taken seriously, other scientists can take the results into account, and the process take place.

Instead, you reference a journal from an organization who's sole purpose is to promote an anti-fluoridation stance. "Hey lets start a journal to gather all the articles that support our conclusion." That's ideological, not evidence based.

You talk about "international conferences", but the conferences are also organized by the same anit-fluoridation people. There's international conferences for people who have been probed by aliens and people who think Obama is a foreign Muslim not born in the US, big deal.

And you miss the whole point. You list some people and ask if they are quacks, implicitly making an appeal to authority argument that the argument has merit simply because the people making the argument are educated and not crazy. You do the same thing by talking about a conference, there's a conference so it must have merit.

But you ignore all the exact same arguments that could be made from the opposite side. PubMed turns up 6000 results for a search of fluoride and teeth. I can list as many pro-fluoridation scientists as you can anti (and far more probably). I can show papers from journals, etc.

So you accept the ones that support your conclusion, and you reject the ones that don't. Classic flawed reasoning.

[photon]

Originally Posted by billybob123

And to whoever said it will get the pool smell out of the water - no it won't. That's the chlorination of the water that makes it smell that way. The chlorination which is a similar net public health benefit. Why don't we discuss removing that from the water supply too? It's probably bad for us!

We could start drinking salt water!

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's.. so beautiful!!!

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

If Mikey is a parody character, he puts a tremendous amount of effort into it. I applaud your devotion!

Has anybody heard from dissentower, the exterminate all bears dude, and Chris Lindberg (conspiracy theories about the secret world economic order) lately? They should get together.

Actually, yes.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

Instead, you reference a journal from an organization who's sole purpose is to promote an anti-fluoridation stance. "Hey lets start a journal to gather all the articles that support our conclusion." That's ideological, not evidence based.

There are several references to more big name medical journals inside the document that I posted. It is a simple compilation of stats and studies from all over the world for someone to look at and draw their own conclusions.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

Because people often choose a profession not simply because they make lots of $$, but because they care about it, they have a passion for it.

They want to see kids not have to go through the pain and cost of dental procedures.

This "more business = more money" style of rhetorical argument only makes sense to the "X is a conspiracy to make people Y so they can make more $" crowd.

It is not a conspiracy, christ it is just business. I know I wouldn't be running around recommending cheap ways for the government to put me out of business.

[photon]

Even if those cheap ways meant reducing pain and suffering? That's cold.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by billybob123

Ashartus debunked (in a simple internet forum post) the anti-fluoride arguments.

Yet the fluoride article linked in Ashartus sig say the following:

"Overall the data do not appear to show evidence of significant adverse effects (other than fluorosis) at the “target” concentration in drinking water of approximately 1 ppm. Higher concentrations, particularly in the range of 4 ppm and above, do appear to be associated with a variety of adverse effects and should be avoided – areas where fluoride naturally exceeds this concentration should use appropriate treatment to reduce the concentration."

People are generally getting more than 1ppm fluoride.

In Ontario for example, as of 2008 the maximmum allowable fluoride concentration was 8.5ppm.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

There are several references to more big name medical journals inside the document that I posted.

Sure, anyone can reference existing work. On another forum there's a guy who references real physics papers all the time, his theory is that the universe is 6000 years old and it looks older because the atmosphere bends all the light coming into earth to make it all look old.

Just because a paper is referenced doesn't mean it's referenced properly, or that it actually supports the conclusions being drawn.

Creating a document with no peer review does little, creating another journal paper that references previous papers means more.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

It is a simple compilation of stats and studies from all over the world for someone to look at and draw their own conclusions.

Directed at people who would not be able to tell if the information is actually right, if the articles are meaningful, if it's representative or if its cherry picked, etc etc... Conclusions made without sufficient information, without sufficient knowledge and training, without sufficient consideration of all the factors, are worse than no conclusions at all.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by photon

Majority requests something, government does it, oh the tyranny!

*Note that I don't think all issues should be decided by the majority, especially in cases the majority aren't knowledgeable enough to make the decision. Just amazed at the silliness.

Who decides in which cases the majority rule won't apply?

I wish Australia would follow, all but one state (QLD) have fluoridated water. Fricken Queensland!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Fluoride is in mouthwash and toothpaste for its topical effect on teeth. Fluoride in the water is mainly (it does have some topical effect) for its systemic uptake in to the developing tooth.

Remind me why should I care about the developing tooth. Put fluoride in water for babies, bottle it, sell it, pour it down babies throats. Voila. And I'm sure there's even profit somewhere in there

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

Directed at people who would not be able to tell if the information is actually right, if the articles are meaningful, if it's representative or if its cherry picked, etc etc... Conclusions made without sufficient information, without sufficient knowledge and training, without sufficient consideration of all the factors, are worse than no conclusions at all.

You are right in saying there are tons of scientists on both sides of the debate. So if there isn't a consensus, why are we adding this stuff to the water? Seems irresponsible....

Well, obviously these people without sufficient training, knowledge etc. are making an impact, because many government/health institutions, including the EPA, have come out and recommended lowering fluoride concentrations in drinking water. This to me shows alot of this work has atleast some merit. I think in time water fluoridation will be a giant embarrassment for the government.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by troutman

Mikey is clearly a parody character like Colbert. Nearly every fact he alleges on CP is demonstrably wrong.

"Water fluoridation has been introduced to varying degrees in many countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Malaysia, the U.S., and Vietnam,[1] and is used by 5.7% of people worldwide."

So everyone else is a moron, right?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Mark

I think there is enough proof with the example of Europe. With the stereotypical British jokes aside, most of Europe has removed fluoride for 20-30 years already and the statistics show no change in tooth decay rates. So if it isn't doing anything, why put it in? I think we're just facing the usual change=evil Albertan mindset. While I do want a choice if fluoride is put in my water, I am surprised the Calgary council made the decision themselves. Anyone that wants fluoride in their water can go get a prescription and add it themselves as it's much harder to remove for those that don't want it.

Emphasis added.....

Europe is largely not fluoridated.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

"Water fluoridation has been introduced to varying degrees in many countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Malaysia, the U.S., and Vietnam,[1] and is used by 5.7% of people worldwide."

So everyone else is a moron, right?

Europeans are morons for not fluoridating also..

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Emphasis added.....

Europe is largely not fluoridated.

According ti wikipedia, only Ireland and 10% of the population in Spain and the UK receive fluoridated water. 1% of the Japanese have fluoridated water. But I am sure European/Japanese scientists don't count in a good CP debate.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Yet the fluoride article linked in Ashartus sig say the following:

"Overall the data do not appear to show evidence of significant adverse effects (other than fluorosis) at the “target” concentration in drinking water of approximately 1 ppm. Higher concentrations, particularly in the range of 4 ppm and above, do appear to be associated with a variety of adverse effects and should be avoided – areas where fluoride naturally exceeds this concentration should use appropriate treatment to reduce the concentration."

People are generally getting more than 1ppm fluoride.

In Ontario for example, as of 2008 the maximmum allowable fluoride concentration was 8.5ppm.

You know Calgary fluoridates at 0.7 mg/L, right? That's 0.7 ppm.

What do you think the concentration would be if people had to dose themselves?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by SebC

You know Calgary fluoridates at 0.7 mg/L, right? That's 0.7 ppm.

What do you think the concentration would be if people had to dose themselves?

Well that is a good thing if that is true. I believe there were concerns among the city council members of lack of oversight with fluoridation.

So you hope you're only getting that amount, but I'm sure concentrations vary among regions.