It's not worth the risk!!! Vote NO!

[Angela]

The "fluoride" that is added to our drinking water is not the same as what is in our toothpaste. Adding this stuff to our water is like adding an antibiotic to the water for the few folks who need an antibiotic. It works topically, that's why we do not swallow sunscreen.

[panamaniac]

Yes, fight the global conspiracy to harm us all. Get the chlorine out of the public water supply as well.

[Razzie]

I lived in Waterloo for 26 years, and if I had a cavity, it was one or two and it would need freezing first. I've lived in Kitchener for 11 months, and I'm going in today to fix SIX tiny cavities that don't need freezing. My dentist said when she used to work at another clinic closer to Kitchener she could tell where the patients lived just by looking at the charts. Part of me wonders if the lack of fluoride is partly to blame for what I get to have fixed today.

Say what you want about it, but fluoride helps prevent tooth decay, which in the end helps prevent lots of diseases which can enter the body just because of said decay. The Record published an article a while back (http://news.therecord.com/article/295178) that has a few facts. I've also heard from some that what we call fluoride is actually a different kind of fluoride which is actually toxic waste. Part of me wonders why nobody has tried for decades to change this, and if it is toxic waste, how come we aren't trying to switch to actual fluoride and are instead focusing all our efforts on removing fluoride altogether.

[garthdanlor]

The "fluoride" that is added to our drinking water is not the same as what is in our toothpaste. Adding this stuff to our water is like adding an antibiotic to the water for the few folks who need an antibiotic. It works topically, that's why we do not swallow sunscreen.
Adding fluoride to the water supply is simply NOT the same as adding antibiotics to water as NO water management authority anywhere does this. It isn't even analogous to the use of antibiotics in livestock. Rather, it is akin to the fortification of flour, milk, and commercials cereals, etc. Support it or don't support it, but can't we ever have a discussion in the public sphere without this sort or wild rhetoric?

BTW, the CDC thinks quite highly of the practice...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm

[plam]

Yes, fight the global conspiracy to harm us all. Get the chlorine out of the public water supply as well.

Montreal does not flouridate water. It also does not treat water with chlorine, but instead ozonates the water. It does use some chlorine to preserve the water from the treatment centre to the tap.

I don't know about the drinking water treatment here.

I do feel that the flouridation debate is often founded on emotion, not facts.

[Peter]

On this thread, I'm reading comments from folks who repeat endorsements and opinions from dentists and others, all without facts to back up their statements. The science to prove that fluoride added to drinking water reduces cavities does not exist or is never brought forth for anyone to verify. However, science pointing to genuine risks does exist. You can read it on WaterlooWatch.com. The debate will be won or lost on verifiable science, not opinion.

[Spokes]

I lived in Waterloo for 26 years, and if I had a cavity, it was one or two and it would need freezing first. I've lived in Kitchener for 11 months, and I'm going in today to fix SIX tiny cavities that don't need freezing. My dentist said when she used to work at another clinic closer to Kitchener she could tell where the patients lived just by looking at the charts. Part of me wonders if the lack of fluoride is partly to blame for what I get to have fixed today.


Sorry but that's ridiculous. I've lived in Kitchener just about all my life and I've never had a cavity. Im not sure I'd draw that connection, but that's just me.

[zanate]

Interesting discussion, but this is probably a case of "Don't Feed The Trolls".

[WatDot]

On this thread, I'm reading comments from folks who repeat endorsements and opinions from dentists and others, all without facts to back up their statements.

Actually many dentists do not support the flouridation of water, although the Associations still stand behind it. It's an old ideology that needs re-evaluation. In the City of Waterloo a great deal of public money is spent on the flouride (industrial grade), the monitoring of it, and the replacement of treatment/distribution infrastructure because of its corrosiveness. The City of Waterloo is not one of Canada'a lower income cities where this old ideology "may potentially" make a difference. Wouldn't the money be better spent reallocating to Public Dental Health Clinics for effective dental care opposed to the hypothetical treatment of mass population which is "assumed" to consume a significant amount of tap water. It is important to note that bottled/reverse osmosis water does not have the industrial flouride within it that the City of Waterloo adds.

[Waterlooer]

Montreal does not flouridate water. It also does not treat water with chlorine, but instead ozonates the water. It does use some chlorine to preserve the water from the treatment centre to the tap.

I don't know about the drinking water treatment here.

I do feel that the flouridation debate is often founded on emotion, not facts.

I was in Montreal 2 years ago and drank some of the water from there tap... it was by far the best tasting water I've ever had from the tap, it was better than spring water. They must have done something over the last year or so to the water, because last year the tap water left a really strong/bad aftertaste and now it's not as bad. I don't like having chemicals put into my water, and it having a bad aftertaste so thats why I vote NO.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Yes, fight the global conspiracy to harm us all. Get the chlorine out of the public water supply as well.

Oh how I love the internet. lol

[kenneth37]

I have tested my water at an independent lab and I can tell you the dentists are lieing when they say that trace elements are undetectable in the water.
Arsenic, lead and mercury is in the water and you and I have to drink it and so do little children as well.
If you support fluoride then go to the drug store and get it.

[Urbanomicon]

I have tested my water at an independent lab and I can tell you the dentists are lieing when they say that trace elements are undetectable in the water.
Arsenic, lead and mercury is in the water and you and I have to drink it and so do little children as well.
If you support fluoride then go to the drug store and get it.

I assume you are a resident of Waterloo where the water is currently being flouridated. Have you tested the water in Kitchener (currently not flouridated) to see if the same heavy metal levels exist? Just because those elemets are present in the water system does not necessarily mean that they are the result of the flouride additive. Ground water often has traces of these and many other metals. Correlation does not establish causation.

[WatDot]

I assume you are a resident of Waterloo where the water is currently being flouridated. Have you tested the water in Kitchener (currently not flouridated) to see if the same heavy metal levels exist? Just because those elemets are present in the water system does not necessarily mean that they are the result of the flouride additive. Ground water often has traces of these and many other metals. Correlation does not establish causation.

The only problem is that the Region's water system isn't definitive. Kitchener "occassionally" receives flouridated water as does Cambridge. I have a close friend that works in the Region's water treatment. That being said, I have no opinion on the claim by Kenneth. I personally think we only need to look at the cost and rate of return to realize flouridation of water in the City of Waterloo is pointless. It's wasted money that can be better used to improve dental health of the local community through public clinics. Heck I think we'd even see a savings in tax dollars going that route.

[2kaa2]

If people are so concerned about cavities (and general overall health), they need to take some personal responsibility and actively become informed about proper oral care rather than putting their faith in in water fluoridation which, since it's inception in the 1950's, has shown little to no meaningful impact on preventing tooth decay in any epidemiological study. The dentist I go to in Stratford doesn't even recommend fluoride. Cutting edge oral care is way beyond the notion of fluoridation, topical (which has some scientific merit) or ingested through water supplies (which is ludicrous concept). People need to clean house: get proper fat soluble vitamins in their diet while stop eating/drinking so much garbage that puts their body into a state of disarray and depletes their mineral reserves. I realize this is not as easy as it once was since the government's lopsided (i.e. corn-happy) food subsidies have considerably weakened the quality of our food supply. Read Weston Price's work, all indigenous tribes he studied in the early 1900's suffered no tooth decay, however they didn't have anywhere close to the scientific knowledge and tools as we have at our disposal today. Upon adopting western lifestyle of refined carbs (i.e. white flour, sugar), their tooth decay grew rapidly. The failure of individual people to not educate themselves is no excuse to medicate the whole public, especially given that the medication in question (fluoridation) has proven utterly worthless while promoting other health damaging side effects. In the same principle, it should be reasonable to state that just because a large percentage of people are overweight with high cholesterol because of poor lifestyle, does not make it right to force everyone to take statins. By the way, to Garthdanlor who feels that the CDC's endorsements should blindly be trusted: H1N1 fiasco!! Wake up, get used to the idea that the priorities of governing health bodies do not always align with its citizens. Don't pretend that the government has never lied to us before. It's time we became a lot less passive and a lot more discerning of what we are fed through government and media.

[neonjoe]

I think this is almost a non issue, who in this day and age actually drinks tap water as is. The water is really not too good tasting, albeit worse in Waterloo than Kitchener. I live in South Kitchener and I myself do not drink the water untreated, heck my cat won't either, she just sticks her nose up to it unless it bottled or water from my filtered faucett. If an animal with a stronger sense of smell doesn't like it, there's something wrong, and this is water without fluoridation. I had my tap water tested and eventually installed an RO system.

All in all I would say it probably doesn't matter if it's fluoridated or not, the water is foul either way, one just a bit worse than the other. In this region since the water is so hard you should really treat it yourself before consuming it.

[garthdanlor]

By the way, to Garthdanlor who feels that the CDC's endorsements should blindly be trusted: H1N1 fiasco!! Wake up, get used to the idea that the priorities of governing health bodies do not always align with its citizens. Don't pretend that the government has never lied to us before. It's time we became a lot less passive and a lot more discerning of what we are fed through government and media.
I'm actually undecided on the issue as I am attempting to look at the evidence, pro and contra, before deciding. It gets quite difficult to do this with all the hyperbole flying about (most of it coming from the single issue, first time posters like you). You don't like the CDC endorsement, then that is fine, but don't you think your arguments would hold more weight without the government conspiracy angle???

[fin2limb]

I think this is almost a non issue, who in this day and age actually drinks tap water as is. The water is really not too good tasting, albeit worse in Waterloo than Kitchener. I live in South Kitchener and I myself do not drink the water untreated, heck my cat won't either, she just sticks her nose up to it unless it bottled or water from my filtered faucett. If an animal with a stronger sense of smell doesn't like it, there's something wrong, and this is water without fluoridation. I had my tap water tested and eventually installed an RO system.

All in all I would say it probably doesn't matter if it's fluoridated or not, the water is foul either way, one just a bit worse than the other. In this region since the water is so hard you should really treat it yourself before consuming it.

Oh c'mon. Kitchener's water is not that bad. I drink the tap water all the time. And this is coming from a guy that survived the Walkerton E Coli tragedy. I don't claim to be an expert on this subject. Actually I'll admit I don't know too much about it. But in my opinion, drinking water should only be treated for bacteria and any pathogens that may be harmful to our health. Like someone said above, preventative oral care should be your responsibility not the City's, i.e., brush and floss your teeth daily, rinse with Listerine and visit your dentist regularly.

[plam]

I realize this is not as easy as it once was since the government's lopsided (i.e. corn-happy) food subsidies have considerably weakened the quality of our food supply.

Corn subsidies are in the US, not here, which is partly why the box of Smarties in front of me does not contain high-fructose corn syrup. There have been trade disputes where Canadian farmers have complained about US corn subsidies (and we put a tariff on imported US corn). CDC is also American.

On another note, I do drink tap water. Works fine for me. It's one of those things people like to complain about, it seems. I don't think that filters actually do anything, and one should definitely not drink water that's been through a water softener, since that water is high in sodium. Reverse osmosis should be fine (but I don't think it's particularly useful).

[Osiris]

Oh c'mon. Kitchener's water is not that bad. I drink the tap water all the time. And this is coming from a guy that survived the Walkerton E Coli tragedy. I don't claim to be an expert on this subject. Actually I'll admit I don't know too much about it. But in my opinion, drinking water should only be treated for bacteria and any pathogens that may be harmful to our health. Like someone said above, preventative oral care should be your responsibility not the City's, i.e., brush and floss your teeth daily, rinse with Listerine and visit your dentist regularly.

Nice to see a fellow Walkertonian around here. I also drink tap water all the time and agree with your basic point - the onus is on us to keep ourselves healthy.

Also to the "Who drinks tap water anymore?" folk - most of you who buy bottled water do. Unless you've got your own RO system installed, there is a really good chance you're simply overpaying for a company to bottle and deliver another town's water.

[WatDot]

"About 83 per cent of Waterloo Region residents brush their teeth at least twice a day. Women are more likely to brush their teeth than men (91.9 per cent vs. 74.7 per cent)"

Region of Waterloo, Public Health (http://chd.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/health.nsf/4f4813c75e78d71385256e5a0057f5e1/8FD72CDF9898D96C852572D50066597D/$file/Glance_OralHealth.pdf?openelement)

Unless they are brushing their teeth with sh$!, then the amount of topical fluoride majority of residents are receiving should be sufficient to prevent tooth decay. The industrial waste they put in the City of Waterloo's water is wasted money, among many other things.

[Peter]

"Just because those elemets are present in the water system does not necessarily mean that they are the result of the flouride additive."

The HFSA manifests that come into Waterloo County for Fluoridation clearly lists lead, mercury, arsenic and radioactive materials in the compound. We are buying this toxic waste from Florida and pouring it into our water. That's a fact - the evidence is there to prove it.

[Peter]

I assume you are a resident of Waterloo where the water is currently being flouridated. Have you tested the water in Kitchener (currently not flouridated) to see if the same heavy metal levels exist? Just because those elemets are present in the water system does not necessarily mean that they are the result of the flouride additive. Ground water often has traces of these and many other metals. Correlation does not establish causation.

The manifests from the tanks of Hydrofluorosilicic acid that come into the Region list mercury, lead, arsenic and radioactive materials. It does not arrive randomly from groundwater. While this issue is loaded with charming opinion like the quote above, the facts will tell the people the truth.

[mpd618]

The manifests from the tanks of Hydrofluorosilicic acid that come into the Region list mercury, lead, arsenic and radioactive materials. It does not arrive randomly from groundwater. While this issue is loaded with charming opinion like the quote above, the facts will tell the people the truth.

OK. If you're here to provide facts instead of just claiming something to be true, please provide evidence for your claim about the tanks of additive.

[isUsername]

The manifests from the tanks of Hydrofluorosilicic acid that come into the Region list mercury, lead, arsenic and radioactive materials. It does not arrive randomly from groundwater.

[citation needed]

[WatDot]

From the Waterloo Chronicle:

"Re: “Debate over?”, Sept. 15 Waterloo Chronicle The time for debate is over.

Community water fluoridation has, and continues to be, one of the best ways of protecting the Waterloo region’s oral health.

I’ve seen the effects of water fluoridation in the mouths of my patients. Simply put, those from Waterloo have lower incidences of dental decay than those in Kitchener. The difference? Waterloo fluoridates its water. Kitchener doesn’t.

But don’t take it from just my experience. Look at the science.

I stand behind the wealth of peer-reviewed academic research that supports the safety and efficacy of community water fluoridation. It has strong support from over 90 national and international professional health organizations.

Our position is firm. Community water fluoridation, in the right amount, is both safe and effective. It’s not a debate — it is a fact.

Dr. Harry Hoediono President-elect, Ontario Dental Association"

Only problem is there is a debate. Does this process continue to offer taxpayers the most bang for their buck? In 2010 I do not think it is a wise use of local tax dollars and/or effective for preventive dental care in Waterloo Region. Again, increased funding to Public Dental Clinics will be far more effective targeting those from the lower income groups who may not have dental plans and/or access to dental care products. Providing better public dental care to this group will allow for more important procedures. Procedures which if ignored effect the patients diet and overall health, and in return may put strain on the Health Care system.

Difference in cavities between Waterloo and Kitchener residents... give me a break. Just as wild as the conspiracy theories. There is no research that supports this, nor is it possible as the water infrastructure isn't defined as the city boundaries are (they are defined by pumping stations). This is simply an old ideology that needs to be re-evaluated for our LOCAL community!

[starchild]

I went to the Fluoride open house and I listened to a certified technician who installs municipal fluoridated systems for municipalities. He showed his manual that states if fluoride levels go .2% lower than the dose mentioned in the guideline book, it would be ineffective. The silly thing is the Government has already reduced those recommended levels by 2.5 times that amount. Seriously, why are we bothering to use it at all when the technical guideline says these levels are useless? :RpS_confused: I'm also wondering about the potential risk of contamination to groundwater when the city flushes our water mains etc. Fluoride can increase the toxicity of other chemicals so what happens when we flush our pipes and it ends up in tributaries or the Grand, particularly during the time of year fertilizers are being applied on farms? Why have that risk when toothpaste and floss work so much better?

[WatDot]

Couldn't agree more Starchild. The cost; financially, environmentally and potentially health wise, makes this practice pointless.

[WatDot]

Academic research, revealing the danger of fluoridation in water.

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/02-35-1/351-01.pdf

China no longer fluoridates its water.
"Water fluoridation in China began in 1964 in Guangzhou and was discontinued in 1983 after a 6.5-fold increase in dental fluorosis was observed with only a marginal decrease in dental caries."

[WatDot]

Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns.

For a list of countries (including China & Japan):
http://fluoridation.com/c-country.htm

[Peter]

[citation needed]

http://www.waterloowatch.com/hydrofluorosilicic%20acid.html Some people are in serious denial, even if the proof is handed to them... Here's your citation.

[IEFBR14]

Despite dental pressure
Why would dentists continue to support fluoridation if it's ineffective or, worse, if it's dangerous to public health? What's in it for them?

Why would the medical profession, in general, support fluoridation if they had evidence that it's dangerous to public health? What's in it for them?

COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION IN AMERICA: THE UNPRINCIPLED OPPOSITION (http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/opposition.pdf)

[taylortbb]

http://www.waterloowatch.com/hydrofluorosilicic%20acid.html Some people are in serious denial, even if the proof is handed to them... Here's your citation.

We're not in denial, that's not proof. The presence of radiation detectors doesn't mean the product is radioactive, in fact it's the point of them to make sure there is no radiation release. That also does not even slightly address the issue of concentration. The levels that are in drinking water are so tiny that they are within established guidelines. Just because something is harmful in large doses does not mean it's bad for you. There are many vitamins and minerals your body needs that would be toxic at what seem like small doses.

Do you have peer-reviewed scientific sources? WaterlooWatch is an advocacy site.

[smably]

http://www.waterloowatch.com/hydrofluorosilicic%20acid.html Some people are in serious denial, even if the proof is handed to them... Here's your citation.
A link to an anti-fluoride web site? Seriously, that's your citation?

If anything, I think the anti-fluoride people have actually done fluoride a favour by discrediting their own opposition.

[WatDot]

Why would dentists continue to support fluoridation if it's ineffective or, worse, if it's dangerous to public health? What's in it for them?

Why would the medical profession, in general, support fluoridation if they had evidence that it's dangerous to public health? What's in it for them?

COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION IN AMERICA: THE UNPRINCIPLED OPPOSITION (http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/opposition.pdf)

The Ontario Dental Association continues to support fluoridation, not all individual dentists. I can provide you with some Ontario dentist contacts that are against the fluoridation of water (msg me if you would like them). Why the Association continues to support it is beyond me while in the same breath they tell the public to not "swallow" topical fluoride. Change in ways is hard for many people, and you are showing exactly that. Really, what is wrong with using topical fluoride in toothpaste and when you go to visit the dentist. Why must we force everyone to ingest fluoride in our water source? Put an end to the debate and take it out of the water. There's plenty of other ways for us to get proper fluoride in a less controversial way.

[smably]

Here is the evidence I would like to see:
If the hydrofluorosilicic acid adds significant amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic, and radioactive materials to our drinking water, what are the documented medical effects of this contamination? I assume that there would be higher levels of cancer and heavy metal poisoning in municipalities that add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water. Can someone point me to some credible peer-reviewed research regarding the health effects of this additive? Note that I'm not interested in the effects of fluoride itself, only the effects of the contaminants in hydrofluorosilicic acid. This is an honest request. (Links to web sites of anti-fluoride groups will be ignored.)

[IEFBR14]

There's lots of information about fluoridation in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation) that refutes many of the contentions of the anti-fluoridation zealots. One example re effectiveness/danger is their argument that Europe generally no longer fluoridates drinking water [my bolding]:


Most countries in Europe have experienced substantial declines in cavities without the use of water fluoridation.[4] For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped. Fluoridation may be useful in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. [and Canada!] does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride.[16] The effectiveness of water fluoridation can vary according to circumstances such as whether preventive dental care is free.[54]
However...

Communities have discontinued water fluoridation in some countries, including Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland.[19] This change was often motivated by political opposition to water fluoridation, but sometimes the need for water fluoridation was met by alternative strategies. The use of fluoride in its various forms is the foundation of tooth decay prevention throughout Europe; for example, France, Germany, and many other European countries use fluoridated salt.[23]
In other words the anti-fluoridation zealots often twist the truth. For example they contend that Germany's discontinuance of water fluoridation proves that it's ineffective and/or dangerous. They ignore that Germany has school-based dental care and that Germany now fluoridates table salt instead.

Their half-truths are used to scare the public rather than to shed light on the issue :RpS_thumbdn:

[Urbanomicon]

http://www.waterloowatch.com/hydrofluorosilicic%20acid.html Some people are in serious denial, even if the proof is handed to them... Here's your citation.

Some information on radioactivity: virtually every substance, from man-made objects you use everyday, to the earth beneath our feet, even humans, have some degree of radioisotopes present, and thus are somewhat radioactive. The difference in lethality to humans between something like Plutonium and something like ordinary rock is the amount of radioisotopes present, their half-life, and the method of their decay. I'm not taking sides, but views like: "They used to the word radioactive! It's going to kill us!" need to be put into perspective.

[KLM]

one ,actually two things we also have to bear in mind regarding dental health:
amount of sugar and salt in our food.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

http://paganmedia.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/its-a-conspiracy.jpg

Just a funny picture that came to mind when I started reading this thread.

[Peter]

Last night's forum on Fluoride, held at the Rec Complex gave excellent insights into the chemical, historical and ethical reasons why fluoridation must be stopped. Once again the pro-fluoride side refused to show up and offer any proof or science to back their rote opinions and endorsements.
The audience was treated ...to great speeches, especially from Dr. Paul Connett a chemist, leader of the Fluoride Action Network and global fighter against fluoridation and Heather Gingrich, a medical geologist who cautioned us against environmental damage. Franklin Ramsoomair, a candidate in the Waterloo mayoral contest gave a passionate talk as well.
Sadly, no reporters from the Record were on hand. From the evidence of Friday morning's paper, The Record seems content to reprint 'talking points' from the O.D.A. instead of actually investigating this issue. Thanks, therefore, to the Chronicle for their continued interest and professional approach to this topic.

[taylortbb]

The Record seems content to reprint 'talking points' from the O.D.A. instead of actually investigating this issue.

What The Record is doing is called responsible journalism. Rather than simply presenting both sides and calling it balanced, they're looking at the facts and reporting appropriately. The simple truth is that science is on the side of fluoridation. Studies which have concluded fluoride is harmful have not been published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. Until they are peer reviewed and published the conclusions of those studies are highly suspect and cannot be considered fact. Reporting a small group of people with questionable evidence as equal to the conclusions of peer reviewed scientific journals would be irresponsible on the part of the The Record.

[smably]

Still waiting to see the evidence regarding contaminants...
http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/653-It-s-not-worth-the-risk!!!-Vote-NO!?p=15985#post15985

[Robert]

I asked a professor of toxicology (who does not live in Waterloo region and has no stake in our debate) what he thought about fluoridating water. He supported it, saying the data are clear that it improves dental health. When I asked about ill effects on the rest of the body, he said that the first symptom of getting so much fluoride that it would damage your health would be visible scaling on your teeth. So, it would be visibly evident to everyone, and our dentists, if we were being harmed by too much fluoride.

And if the argument is against the trace metals in the "waste" that is used to fluoridate water, we are indeed still waiting on this forum for actual concentrations.

[Waterlooer]

You want to drink water that has chemicals in it??? Like mercury and arsenic and others I forget. These are all in fluoridated water. And dentists are saying the fluoride is good for our teeth... true, but instead of drinking all the toxic stuff, just brush and floss your teeth everyday... as simple as that. I can't understand why people are wanting to drink water with chemicals... it makes no sense whatsoever.

[cambridge-city-boy]

So we all know that fluoride is good for our teeth... but is it good to be ingested into our system? There has been no long term study on the effects of fluoride being ingested into the human body. I personally believe that more tests should be made, to determine whether or not this "treatment" is healthy for us, maybe it would explain the sudden increase of certain diseases such as cancers that have been flourishing lately.

[IEFBR14]

I can't understand why people are wanting to drink water with chemicals... it makes no sense whatsoever.

There has been no long term study on the effects of fluoride being ingested into the human body.
We've been adding iodine to salt for even longer. I assume you both want to stop that too.

Oh and BTW since salt also contains trace contaminants like heavy metals I suppose you want to ban all added salt from prepared foods and to stop adding salt to the food you prepare at home?

Good luck with that.


I personally believe that more tests should be made, to determine whether or not this "treatment" is healthy for us, maybe it would explain the sudden increase of certain diseases such as cancers that have been flourishing lately.
The problem is that our drinking water (and food) contains trace amounts of all sorts of contaminants including really gross stuff like excreted pharmaceuticals (e.g. birth control pill hormones) and all sorts of wicked stuff that people poured down the drain that couldn't be totally filtered out. How do you propose to eliminate all of that?

Yes, some of these contaminants are implicated in cancers. But the problem is how do you know which contaminants are dangerous at present levels and which aren't? And where is the evidence that links fluoridated drinking water with cancer? Remember we get fluoride in other ways too, e.g. some occurs naturally in drinking water, some gets introduced through toothpaste, some jurisdictions add fluoride to table salt instead of water (e.g. Germany), etc.?

It's not clear that fluoride and/or fluoridation causes cancer. It's even less clear that fluoridation of drinking water causes cancer. Unless of course you're one of those tin-foil hat types who sees conspiracies behind everything society does.

[WatDot]

Oh and BTW since salt also contains trace contaminants like heavy metals I suppose you want to ban all added salt from prepared foods and to stop adding salt to the food you prepare at home?

Actually there is a push to reduce salt intake from prepared foods just like there is a push to reduce fluoride intake by eliminating it from our drinking water. Why add crap when it's not needed?! Let the end user have control over what they add. Fluoride or salt!!

[Waterlooer]

Wow... thats horrible! I want to hear why people want fluoride in our water

[IEFBR14]

Actually there is a push to reduce salt intake from prepared foods just like there is a push to reduce fluoride intake by eliminating it from our drinking water. Why add crap when it's not needed?! Let the end user have control over what they add. Fluoride or salt!!
You missed my point. It's not about salt, but rather about iodine, which is added to salt in order to prevent "iodine deficiency [which] affects about two billion people and is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt)."

[I'll try to resist the temptation to speculate whether the anti-fluoridation folks also refrain from using iodized salt ;) ]

[WatDot]

You missed my point. It's not about salt, but rather about iodine, which is added to salt in order to prevent "iodine deficiency [which] affects about two billion people and is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt)."

[I'll try to resist the temptation to speculate whether the anti-fluoridation folks also refrain from using iodized salt ;) ]

I have to admit that got a chuckle out of me. :RpS_biggrin: