The government was told this in the 70's, but the activists didn't listen and prevailed. They insisted that the levels they were requiring were "safe". We are no different today, hence we keep our city water consumption down by getting bottled drinks and filtering our city supply.

I didnt know kids these days even drank water.

Does government get anything right? What & Who do we trust & believe?

Joe-1510960

I didnt know kids these days even drank water.

they don't. as for this being a corporate plot, back in the 50s this was thought to be a commie plot, guess we're back to blaming everything on corporations... I miss the red menace...

While this probably was a good thing when 1st instituted, much has changed in America where dental hygiene is concerned. It is most likely unnecessary now. Why spend the money fluoridating the water when dental hygiene is so much better than it was 50 years ago?

I was alarmed when studying the fluoride dosages for infants and children. The dosages were not to exceed .25 ppm for 3 months to 1 yr. The dosage then was increased to .5 ppm until 5 yrs old. Only then, after that age, could the child be given 1 ppm. I was concerned about my child getting an overdose, so he drank ver little of our tap water .

As I am now involved in water analysis, I test our municipal water supply daily. The results fluctuate from .9 to 1.3 ppm. It is obvious that the water supplies add fluoride at the adult dosages. Therefore...as medicine is routinely administered by weight...fluoride is NOT. There should be warnings that children under 5 should not drink fluoridated water supplies...let alone, not drink them at all.

And fluoride/fluorine is in the halogen familiy...right along with chlorine, bromine, iodine, astatine...highly reactive elements. Chlorine is also added to municipal supplies . Can you imagine your child drinking fluorine and chlorine on a daily basis at adult dosage levels?

I have also weighed the opinions of those who feel fluoride may be triggering more cases of autism in children. Fertility issues have also been associated with fluoridation. (Chlorine in municipal supplies also has been associated with miscarriages.)

And the term for the "pitting" caused by dental fluorosis is "mottling".

By the way, I comment Sharron Angle for her mission against the municipal fluoridation that brought awareness to the public.

BTW, almost anything (including pure water) can be toxic if taken in excess. Water contains many trace minerals that all could be toxic if taken in excess, yet are essential and beneficial when taken as a trace. Please stop the sensationalist drivel.

Alcohol is poisonous. Arsenic is poisonous. Copper is poisonous. Aluminum is poisonous. Iron is poisonous. Cigarettes are poisonous. The food you eat has higher amounts of poisonous minerals and compounds than you can ever imagine. But you don't get enough to kill you and your body actually needs some of this stuff to function properly.

Too much of anything will kill you. Can't live without water but it sure will kill you if you're in an ocean of it. Stop playing Chicken Little.

Yes, fluoride is a poison. Period. Yes, it prevents tooth decay.

There is ample anecdotal evidence that this stuff also contributes to serious medical problems. That alone should be enough to allow each individual to choose whether to use fluoride. This is not about stemming a flu epidemic or a polio outbreak. This is about preventing tooth decay.

Consider this. If you choose to fluoridate your teeth yourself....YOU MUST OBTAIN A PRESCRIPTION. That's right, it's not available over the counter. Why not put Prozac in the water and eliminate road rage?

The fluoride compound that is added to water in many localities is a toxic compound - A FREAKING DEADLY BY-PRODUCT - that would cost its producers many, many dollars to safely dispose of this poison. Instead, thanks to a forced medication program, we actually PAY THEM to buy this poison and put it in our bodies.

Now, those are facts. If you want to ingest fluoride to strengthen your teeth, have at it. I don't want it in my diet.

By the way, the mottling of teeth from fluoride ingestion has been know for many years. Indeed, those same folks had far lower rates of tooth decay. That is how the link came to be known.

It works, but it is a very bad idea to allow the government to force people to take medications they do not want.

Amen! I am so glad others recognize the fact we are being forced to buy and consume poison. I never read or hear of others opposed to this, and wondered if most people are even aware. I'm not a 'conspiricy theorist', but I certainly do not think the government should regulate anything other than making sure our water does NOT poison us.

About other drugs ending up in our water supplies. There have been traces of many precription drugs ending up in our drinking water already.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23503485/ns/health-health_care

Topical methods can be used to strengthen the tooth enamel rather than ingesting it or using the municipal systemic methods.

This is obviously a plot by the commies to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. This is why I only drink rain water and pure grain alcohol!

Hmmm....

I seemed to have misplaced my tinfoil hat somewhere...

Also of interest in this matter-

Does anyone else notice that toothpaste ingredients and instructions have changed over the years? When I was a kid, the toothpastes all contained stannous flouride and the instructions said to brush 3 times a day (presumably after each meal). Nowadays the toothpastes contain sodium flouride and say to brush twice a day. I'd asked my dentist about the change in ingredients and got an, "I don't know." - so I looked it up online and have seen claims of everything from "longer shelf life", to "less toxic form of flouride", to "tooth discoloration claims". Apparently some toothpastes still use stannous flouride though (I read somewhere that it does a better job of cleaning and protecting teeth than sodium flouride, but it has a shorter "shelf life" (stores can't keep it on the shelf as long before it "gets old") - and when it "gets old", some have reported tooth discoloration). For those concerned about the possibility of toothpaste causing "canker sores" - check your toothpaste's ingredients for Sodium Lauryl Sulfate as it can cause them - for more info, check this link: http://www.charlesdentalgroup.com/CDG/news/toothpaste.html

Right on.

There's a difference between trace minerals that help in body function and flouride. Any essential mineral or nutrient can be harmful in excess, just look at fat. Fat is essential for tissue repair in the body but too much can cause cardiac disease. However flouride is not an essential nutrient. It does not aid in any tissue repair, neuro synapse, digestion, ect ect. People who drink unflouridated water have been show to have healthy teeth as well. Flouride is only poison, nothing else. Don't believe me? Go read the label of rat poison. While you're at it, go research the Nazi's use of flouride on Jewish prisoners.

I suggest that everyone opposed to flouride in our water supply stop breathing as well because there are numerous toxins/poisons in the air we breathe. Why don't you people simply get out and live your lives instead of worrying so much about all the things that might poison or kill us.

The really strange part is that people don't seem to have any problem swapping spit with complete strangers whenever they kiss someone, but think the govt. is systematically poisoning us because they are flouridating our water......get a life!

Mr Rogers said:

Flouride is poisonous... it is idiotic to add to drinking water. This is just another way large chemical companies make more $$ by selling us their poison to dump in the drinking water so they don't have to pay to dispose of it else where.

Multiple other studies have shown that it dumping flouride in water adds NO benefit to teeth. In fact, many countries in Europe have banned the practice of adding fluoride to water because it was ruled as mass "medicating" the public against their will.

What's next, are we going to add anti-depressants to water? Why not add Ritalin as well.... Slippery slope...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Amazes me the level of stupidity I find on here. Sure, we ingest alot of things that are helpful at proper doses, but can be harmful at improper doses. People complain this shows the govnt knows nothing, but it appears they are tracking it and learning more from best available evidence. We don`t know everything all at once people. Take a look at pictures Pre Flouride.....see anyone smiling?? It`s because of poor brushing and no flouride. Then Mr Rogers engages in useless sarcasm by saying they might next add drugs to water, when we are talking about minerals. Then the moron cites Europe and how they do things.....the continent that gave the world tholidimide? hello!

Alot of these conspiracy people and nut jobs are just plain old stupid. They don`t want vaccines either, but they think Polio just dissapeared? No, if not for vaccines manadated by your government, you or your budy would be dead or on crutches for life quite possibly, so please stop thinking the government is out to control you, actually, it wants you to not cost them any money if you want to know the truth. The government pays to give old people flu shots not cuz they love them , but rather to keep them from running up big bills in the hospital. We give flouride to prevent tooth decay because dentists are expensive, not because some chemical company needs to dump a byproduct as this jacka$$ says.

Ok... Fluoride is poison(?)... funny thing is, most of us have been drinking fluoridated water for our entire lives... I was 1 year old when they started Fluoridating the water... I’ve had e few cavities, but that is my fault... other than that I’ve lived my life in relatively good health, despite the fact that I drink Tap water daily... so if this is such a big problem, ie; the government is poisoning us, why am I still alive and in good health? Where’s all the damage caused by drinking fluoridated water? Or is this just another version of the Chicken Little storey?

Yes it is poison. Yes it causes other medical problems. And why is it in our water? Because someone wants us to drink it. A conspiracy? Is it a conspiracy when a small group of people decide to poison a large group of people? Sounds like a pretty good description to me.

Is it a conspiracy when a large group of people decide not to let a small group of people poison them? No. That is democracy. We used to have this, but not really anymore.

Either get used to the water and wonder why you have poor health or buy yourself a water filter.

sung park:

Refute one single point I made. ONE!

Fluoride in dentistry is only healthful when applied topically to the tooth surface. Internal use can even cause tooth loss.

Yes it is poison. Yes it causes other medical problems. And why is it in our water? Because someone wants us to drink it. A conspiracy? Is it a conspiracy when a small group of people decide to poison a large group of people? Sounds like a pretty good description to me.

Is it a conspiracy when a large group of people decide not to let a small group of people poison them? No. That is democracy. We used to have this, but not really anymore.

Either get used to the water and wonder why you have poor health or buy yourself a water filter.

Ben,
Don’t know whether you were responding to my post or just the article itself, but like i said in my post, I’ve been drinking Tap water daily since I was 1 year old... I’m almost 50 now, and have lived my entire life in good health... sooooo if I’m drinking this "terrible poison" everyday, (im drinking a glass of Tap water as I type) where are all the health problems I’m supposed to be experiencing? where is the sickness caused by consuming poison every day? Why are there not wide spread sickness throughout the entire country?

IMHO we need unbiased factual evidence of these allegations.... not just some facts supplied by a group that has an adjenda one way or the other.

One day the government will be serving the people grape kool-aid and tell the people it's good for them.

I am glad to see that the Jedi Dis-information Brigade is hard at work today...don't you traitorous bastards take a day off?? Shove your tinfoil hat remarks...and the rest of the BS that you try to feed those that do not work out of Langley, Va firmly up your keester! It's one thing to be blissfully ignorant, but another to actively try to cover up truth. Thank you to all those who take there time to enlighten the dim and expose the evil doers.

I second that SD Mark. These folks are like brainwashed sheep following their leaders to a point of no return, right off the cliff. Here's a good article worth reading.

The Folly of Blindly Trusting the Government
By James Bovard
Published 06/05/10

Democracy breeds gullibility. Lord Bryce observed in 1921, "State action became
less distrusted the more the State itself was seen to be passing under popular
control." The rise of democracy made it much easier for politicians to convince
people that government posed no threat, because they automatically controlled
its actions. The result is that the brakes on government power become weakest at
the exact time that politicians are most dangerous.

Blind trust becomes a substitute for informed consent. But mass trust in
government compounds the political damage brought about by pervasive ignorance.

The bias in favor of trusting government brings out democracy's worst
tendencies. The normal defenses that people would have against alien authority
are undermined by a chorus of politicians and government officials continually
reminding people that government is themselves, and they cannot distrust the
government without distrusting themselves.

How should people think about their rulers? This is a question that is rarely
asked. Instead, it is preemptively squelched by myths pummeled into people's
heads from a very early age.

Since it has not been possible to neuter political power, citizens' thinking on
government has been neutered instead. Fear of government is portrayed as a relic
of less civilized, unrefined times. There is a concerted effort to make
distrusting the government intellectually unacceptable, a sign of bad taste or
perhaps ill breeding, if not downright ignoble.

The central mystery of modern political life is: Why are people obliged to
presume that politicians and government are more trustworthy than they seem? The
question is not, Why do people distrust government? The question is, Why do
people follow and applaud politicians who they recognize are lying to them? The
mystery is not that politicians lie, but that citizens believe. It is not a
question of giving rulers one benefit of the doubt -- but of giving such
benefits day after day, year after year, ruler after ruler.

America is perhaps the first nation founded on distrust of government. Checks
and balances were included in the Constitution because of the danger of vesting
too much power in any one man or one branch of government. The Bill of Rights
was erected as a permanent leash on the political class. As Rexford Tugwell, one
of Franklin Roosevelt's Brain Trusters and an open admirer of Stalin's Soviet
system, groused, "The Constitution was a negative document, meant mostly to
protect citizens from their government."

The Founding Fathers issued warning after warning of the inherent danger of
government power. John Adams wrote in 1772, "There is danger from all men. The
only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to
endanger the public liberty." Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1799, "Free government
is founded in jealousy, not confidence.... In questions of power, let no more be
heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution." The term "politician" was in disrepute from 1776 onward (thanks
to the antics of Congress during the Revolutionary War and the conniving of some
of the state legislators after 1783).

Many of the initial curbs on federal power were maintained for most of the first
century of this nation's history in part because Americans often had a derisive
attitude toward government -- especially the federal government.

Wariness toward government was one of the most important bulwarks of American
freedom. Representative government worked fairly well at times partly because
people were skeptical of congressmen, presidents, and government officials
across the board. However, beginning in the early 1900s and accelerating in the
New Deal, government was placed on a pedestal.

Trust after failure

Trust in government is sometimes demanded most vociferously after some
horrendous government blunder or abuse. Such was the case in the aftermath of a
deadly no-knock raid by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and
an FBI tank-and-toxic-gas assault on the home of the Branch Davidians in Waco,
Texas, in 1993, which ended with 80 dead men, women, and children. The
Washington establishment almost instantly closed ranks around the federal
government, canonizing Attorney General Janet Reno -- the person who had
approved an FBI plan to destroy the Davidians' home to bring the siege to an end
-- as a hero.

The precedents established by one political party are routinely exploited for
totally different ends by their opponents. During the 1990s, liberals were in
the vanguard, preaching the need to trust government. After 9/11, it was George
W. Bush who exploited boundless trust to expand government power in ways that
mortified many liberals. The Bush administration could exploit 9/11 because
Americans were predisposed to see credulity and obedience as paramount virtues.

The number of Americans who trusted the federal government to do the right thing
more than doubled in the weeks after the attack. By the end of September 2001,
almost two-thirds of Americans said they "trust the government in Washington to
do what is right" either "just about always" or "most of the time."

The foreign-policy response to 9/11 would have been far more targeted if scores
of millions of Americans had not written George Bush a blank check in the form
of automatic trust. The adulation and deference that he received in the
immediate aftermath of 9/11 encouraged federal officials to believe that they
could do practically whatever they pleased. Top administration officials were
laying plans to attack Iraq within days after the Twin Towers collapsed, though
there was no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks. Less than two weeks after
9/11, senior Bush administration officials were already claiming that the
attacks gave the U.S. government carte blanche to attack anywhere in the world.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo sent White House Counsel Alberto
Gonzales a memo on September 25, 2001, suggesting that "an American attack in
South America or Southeast Asia might be a surprise to the terrorists," since
they were expecting the United States to target Afghanistan.

The most costly entitlement

Blind trust in government is often portrayed as a harmless error -- as if it
were of no more account than saying prayers to a pagan deity. However, the
notion that rulers are entitled to trust is the most expensive entitlement
program of them all. "Follow the leader" has often been a recipe for national
suicide. Throughout history, people have tended to trust most governments more
than rulers deserved.

Blind trust in government has resulted in far more carnage than distrust of
government. The more trust, the less resistance. It was people who believed and
who followed orders who carried out the Nazi Holocaust, the Ukrainian
terror-famine, the Khmer Rouge blood bath, and the war crimes that characterize
conflicts around the globe. It is not just a question of acquiescence but of
breeding a docile attitude toward political events and government actions.

Docility is a far greater danger than blind fanaticism, at least in Western
societies. It is mass docility that permits fanatics to seize power and wreak
havoc. The more people there are who unconditionally trust the government, the
more atrocities there are that the government can commit. All that the
government needs to do afterward is to label and blame the victim.

Excessive trust in government breeds attention deficits. People assume they do
not need to keep an eye on government and politicians because government is no
threat to them -- because their government tells them so. Ignorance combined
with blind trust produces citizens pliable for practically any purpose the ruler
decrees.

When people blindly assume that their leaders are trustworthy, the biggest liars
win. To believe their lies almost guarantees submission. To accept a false
statement from one's rulers is to submit to a lie -- to intellectually submit.
And submission is habit-forming. Politicians do not need to promulgate a duty to
submit because as long as people believe, most will submit to almost anything.
After people lower their mental defenses, political perfidy is halfway home. If
people are trained not to doubt -- politicians need only to continue lying and
denying until all barricades that guard individual rights have been smashed, one
by one.

Any politician who violates his oath to uphold the Constitution has proven
himself unworthy of trust. What is the case for trusting someone who has proven
himself untrustworthy? Should people be proud to trust politicians in a way that
they would consider foolish regarding any other profession?

Much of the American public appears to separate the issues of trust and power --
as if a person's character is irrelevant to how much additional power he should
be permitted to capture. For instance, regardless of the number of people who
believed that Bill Clinton was a liar, his proposals to expand federal power to
protect people or to give them specific new benefits generally had high levels
of popular approval (excepting his 1993-94 health-care plan). Public support for
vesting more power in an untrustworthy ruler is a sign of how few Americans
still understand the nature of government.

In the same way that power corrupts, blind trust corrupts. To say that people
should not blindly trust the government is not to call for anarchy or for
violence in the streets or the torching of city halls across the land. It is not
a choice between trusting the government and refusing to drive on the right side
of the road. Instead, it is a call for people to cease deluding themselves about
those who seek to control them.

Trust in a dishonest government is true escapism -- an evasion of responsibility
for one's own life and liberties. Deference to lying rulers is self-betrayal.

This message board is filled with comments from absolute idiots. BLIND leading the BLIND. Government conspiracy? Are you serious? The positive effects of water flouridation are well documented. Many of the statements posted are opinions and are NOT backed up by any source. Yeah, lets eliminate flouride from our community water.....its happened before and look at the results.

"In 1960, the city of Antigo, Wisconsin, discontinued fluoridation after having fluoridation for 11 years. Six years later, when Antigo elementary school children were found to have substantial increases in caries rates, ranging from 41 to 70 percent, fluoridation was reinstated.

Similar findings occurred in Scotland upon cessation of fluoridation where in the town of Wick, caries rates increased by 40% in primary teeth and by 27% in permanent teeth. This dramatic increase in dental-caries rates occurred despite fluoride toothpaste being readily available and national-caries rates in Scotland continuing to decline.

Moreover, 5 years after fluoridation was discontinued in the town of Stranraer, caries rates increased to levels approaching those found in the nonfluoridated town of Annan. In Stranraer, restorative dental treatment costs for decay alone rose by 115%."

For those who don't know. From birth to 6 months of age, the recommended amount of flouride from water (and any other source including toothpaste) is 0 mg/day. Let me repeat that, ZERO!!!!! This might seem incorrect since the "so called" Infant Water Jugs contain fluoride, as does many formulas. Yes, this is a real problem. Fluorosis can ONLY occur when fluoride is ingested during the enamel formation. Which means older children and adults are at no risk of developing. The most probable reason for fluorosis is from younger children (below age 16) swallowing toothpaste (which levels drastically exceed the minute amounts present in flouridated water) and from flouride (Rx) tablets incorrectly prescribed (mostly via pediatricians).

OK, BLind......what is YOUR source?? You stated some examples, but didn't cite the reference. Get with the program.

BTW, you seem to have no problem calling others "idiots" and "blind", yet you fail to acknowledge that there is a wealth of studies that also show flouride to be poisonous. Stop being biased and hypocritical.

Furthermore, if anyone has any doubts as to the safety of flouride, simply ask any biochemist if they would comfortable having a "safe" adult dosage injected into their bodies. Listen to their response. I get the same response when I ask medical doctors if they wouldn't mind taking a weight-proportioned dosage of the same preservatives used in the very same vaccines that we force upon our children. The answer is always the same...."Uh, NO!"

Now, ask them WHY.....

ha...as you requested

Harris, N. O., & Garcia-Godoy, F. (1999). Primary Preventive Dentistry, 5th ed. Stamford, Connecticut: Appleton and Lange, 658 pp.

Thank you.

Exam

Results of studies of fluoridation and cancer were reported by the Royal College of Physicians in Britain in 1976 in which they concluded: "there is no evidence that fluoride increases the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ." Subsequently, British researchers, Drs. Doll and Kinlen, reported in the Lancet that "none of the evidence provided any reason to support that fluoridation is associated with an increase in cancer mortality, let alone causes it."

"Flouride is poison"

This statement ignores the principle that toxicity is related to dose of a substance and not to mere exposure to the substance itself. Chlorine, vitamin D, table salt, iodine, antibiotics, even water, serve as excellent examples of substances that are harmful in the wrong amounts but beneficial in the correct amounts.

The benifits of fluoride are not even debated in the scientific community because those who develop opinions based on actual reliable scientific data would find no reason to object. The ONLY reason it is debated is because the public is so misguided and misinformed from so called specialists. DON"T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR

I could go on for days.....thanks for entertaining my day off

Mr. Blind,

DON"T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR

I don't. You are no more credible than any of the other sources available on the internet. Just because someone in England wrote it down does not make it fact. Their government is no more trustworthy than ours. I can also find plenty of sources stating the dangers of flouride in drinking water, none of which you will believe, so why bother.

SD Mark and Mike, good points.

GDI, I wasn't responding to your post, but I will now. I'm happy for you being in good health, but I have no idea what you've been drinking for 50 years. No two water treatment facilities' standards are the same. They have a range of constraints, but the water coming out of one can be very different than another. Also, all municipal water systems do not treat their water with flouride. Mine does not. Do you know if yours does? Furthermore, no two people respond the same way to being slowly poisoned. What may kill one person, may not affect another at all. If you one day need a new kidney, how will you know what caused your problem? It's best to just not put things in your body that are not natural, like twinkies. Feel free to drink all the flouride that you like, but the rest of us would like to have a choice.

And for anyone that doesn't know, "Spring water" can sometimes just be bottled tap water. Probably the best thing is to just add a water filter to your house, filter your municipal water, remove the chlorine, the flouride and anything else that shouldn't be there. You will notice a huge difference immediately to your skin if you filter the water going into your shower.

Finally, for those of you that accuse me of being overly paranoid, it's just because everyone is out to get me.

Jack-2510943

Don't bother. Propaganda.

Yea, and you fell for the government lies. Fluoride has NO benefits.

As has been stated, Fluoride is a poison.

Moreover, it only works when it is in contact with the teeth soaking in for 2-4 minutes minimum, otherwise there is no real benefit.

Now, how many of you hold each gulp of water in your mouth for 2-4 minutes before swallowing? Not many, I guess =-p

Most of the benefits of fluoride have been from using toothpaste and rinses, not drinking fluoride laced water. But, in truth, that's the least of your worries. You should be more concerned about the fact mercury and lead levels in the water have been rising for the last 8+ years.

Alright, Jack...care to qualify your statement??

That's nice, however I bet you have no idea how toxic fluoride is and that it actually lowers IQ's. If you want to know why America's dumber then ever, it's after all the years of poisoning it's water. This is for real, no joke. It's very very bad and a poison. Dictators knew the secret to poisoning their populations (Hitler and Stalin) was putting this stuff in the water supply. Since when is it the Gov't's interest on preventing cavities? Think about it. It's a personal responsibility, not something the Gov't should be involved in. They have ulterior motives to keep the population dumbed down. Google eugenics. Google fluoride too.

Should government be involved in any personal areas of our lives?

MerryGoRound obviously eats toothpaste.

I grew up drinking well water and have never had a cavity. I drink bottled spring water now because I don't like the clorine smell coming off the city water supply. The govt needs to leave our water alone except for testing to make sure it's clean.

Not sure if it is proven but I read somewhere that flouride will calcify your pineal gland. For those who do not know it is and has been believed for thousands of years that the pineal gland is your third eye...which may be the source of a powerful chemical which is found in nature that alters conciousness. BTW it is illegal. So if that is all true then I could see why we would be force fed flouride to dumb us down to be more easily controlled...

I never should have clicked through to the comments here, as I cannot believe how stupid so many of you are. Possibly its from not ingesting flouride.

Uncle Will, who grew up cavity-free on well water needs to go back and have that well tested, as I predict the well produces high volumes of naturally-occurring flouride. Since most bottled water is muni water put through a filter to remove some larger minerals and that chlorine smell, well, lets see if any of you (oxy)morons are smart enough to figure that one out.

As for flouride already being in toothpaste, ummm, do you swallow your toothpaste? Do you let it sit in your mouth for hours like chewing gum? Then how are you ingesting enough of it to actually work?

Fluoride doesn't "help" against cavities when you ingest it. It only works by letting it soak into the teeth for 2-4 minutes - and then spitting the rest of the poison out. Problem is, when it's in the water, it's not contacting your teeth long enough to have any benefit but you still can suffer the after effects of ingesting the poison, including flu-like symptoms like nausea and vomiting.

Actually, systemic fluoride only improves the tooth enamel while the teeth are forming. For deciduous teeth, the lower incisors are forming when you are a 3 month old fetus. Permanent teeth also begin forming before you are born. Crowns of unerupted permanant 3rd molars are completed by 12-16 years old Topical treatments harden the enamel by forming a fluorapatite ion, (that needs re-applying every 6 months) and would not be harmful if you do not swallow the solution. Fluoridated toothpaste can also be helpful for erupted teeth as long as you don't swallow it.

Agent Sung,

I grew up drinking soda and not brushing my teeth...I drink lots of RO water now and use fluoride-free toothpaste. I am 40 with no cavities.

I clearly see who you are!

We are stupid for just stating that we want clean water? You are a screwball.

I'm flagging every single stupid, sophomoric comment from Jack-2510943. Until he learns to respect the forum (and others) by refraining from using personal attacks and pointless comments, he has nothing useful to offer the thread.

If everyone would flag his comments we can get him booted. Thanks.

The government doesn't care about truth .... only power & control!

If "TRUTH" mattered Julian Assange would be a hero here!

One twit admiring another. How nice.

Jack,

Do you always call people names without offering facts to contradict their statements?

Jack - great points you're making. You must have been captain of the debate team in school.

This message board is filled with comments from absolute idiots. BLIND leading the BLIND. Government conspiracy? Are you serious? The positive effects of water flouridation are well documented. Many of the statements posted are opinions and are NOT backed up by any source. Yeah, lets eliminate flouride from our community water.....its happened before and look at the results.

"In 1960, the city of Antigo, Wisconsin, discontinued fluoridation after having fluoridation for 11 years. Six years later, when Antigo elementary school children were found to have substantial increases in caries rates, ranging from 41 to 70 percent, fluoridation was reinstated.

Similar findings occurred in Scotland upon cessation of fluoridation where in the town of Wick, caries rates increased by 40% in primary teeth and by 27% in permanent teeth. This dramatic increase in dental-caries rates occurred despite fluoride toothpaste being readily available and national-caries rates in Scotland continuing to decline.

Moreover, 5 years after fluoridation was discontinued in the town of Stranraer, caries rates increased to levels approaching those found in the nonfluoridated town of Annan. In Stranraer, restorative dental treatment costs for decay alone rose by 115%."

You can preach about how there's no danger in flouride and the amazing benefits all you want - the problem here is that I don't believe it, but I'm still forced to have flouride in my tap water. Regardless of whether the stuff is good or bad, I should be able to choose whether or not I want it in my water. Let all these people raving about the stuff put it in their own water at home and LEAVE MY WATER ALONE!!

It was the Board of Dentistry that first suggested the use of fluoride as a cavity deterrent in the water, but some studies have shown that it can cause staining of the teeth, like what happened to you. At the time they really didn't understand the ramifications of putting it in the water or in products like they used on you, nor did they stop to consider that in drinking the water, it's not in contact with your teeth long enough to soak in or make a difference.

That's okay with them though, because now they can charge you a bunch of money to use bleach "whitening" on your teeth and remove layers of enamel, thus weakling your teeth making them more susceptible to damages, cavities, and breakages.

That's okay with them too, since now have expensive procedures to add verniers to replace the lost enamel and a special kind of "paint-on" solution to help restore it...

That's if you have the money for it... ( I know that I don't =-/).

The back, the colon, and the teeth are major focuses of health in the body. Unfortunately, the current field of dentistry often implies that it's own procedures are superfluous. But consider procedures like dental implants and veneers to be major surgery.

As you spew all the studies, have you researched where those studies came from and who financed them. How quicklyt people commenting on this forget or choose to ignore that most studies are financed by corporations or associations that would benefit financially i.e. flouride doesn't prevent cavities - likely financed by some lobbyist for the dental association. You know those dentists want bigger profits to compete on the golf course with those doctors.

This is a perfect explanation.

"In a 1990 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) of 41,104 adults regarding public knowledge of the purpose of fluoridation, 62% correctly identified the purpose.⁶⁶ Knowledge of the purpose of fluoridation was highest among persons aged 35 to 54 years of age (68 to 70%) while younger (18 to 24) and older (≥ 75) persons had less understanding, at 49% and 40%, respectively.⁶⁶ Other findings showed that persons with higher educational attainment levels were more than twice as likely as those with less than a high school education to correctly identify the purpose of fluoridation (76% vs. 36%)."

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control (1992). Morbidity and mortality weekly report: a framework for assessing the effectiveness of disease and injury prevention. MMWR, 41:1–7.

"Quoting of Inaccurate Statements and the Use of Statements Taken Out of Context: The best way to illustrate this common technique of anti-fluoridationists is to refer to two frequently used anti-fluoridation publications, the Lifesavers (Sic) Guide to Fluoridation (a pamphlet) and Fluoride: the Aging Factor. (a book).

Both use essentially the same "scientific references," both are distributed frequently in campaigns, opposing fluoridation, and both documents were marketed by their author as "scientific documents." The one-sheet pamphlet claimed over 250 references. Subsequently, a group of 20 scientists and public health officials from around the United States did a systematic review, tracking down the original references in order to evaluate their validity as used by the author.

The project took two years and resulted in the production of a 184-page monograph, entitled Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Anti-fluoridation Pamphlet. In the monograph, the 20 scientists documented that the information in the Lifesavers (Sic) Guide to Fluoridation pamphlet was primarily fabricated pseudo-science for which no scientific evidence was available.

Some of the findings of this protracted review included:

(a) of the 250 references, only—48 were from reputable scientific journals; (b) 116 of the 250 references had no relevance to community water fluoridation whatsoever; (c) many of the references actually supported fluoridation with the works of respected scientists selectively quoted, misquoted, and misrepresented in order to make them appear to discourage the use of fluorides."

Wulf, C. A., Hughes, K. F., Smith, K. G., & Easley, M. W., Eds. (1999). Abuse of the scientific literature in an antifluoridation pamphlet (2nd ed.). Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, xxxv

Blind

Quoting of Inaccurate Statements and the Use of Statements Taken Out of Context:

This is similar to the scam of the global warming/climate change scheme!

But,, if you consider the benefits of systemic fluoride only affect enamel as it's forming unerupted (up to age 12-16 for 3rd molars), then the mass fluoridation of municipal supplies should be thoroughly scrutinized and reviewed. The average measurement in my municipal supply is .9 to 1.3 ppm (mg/L). And as "medicine dosage" is prescribed by weight, dispensing fluoride through the water system is not. This water contains triple to 5 times the dosage a child 5 yrs and younger should have. I would think this practice should be stopped, and topical fluoride treatments encouraged instead.

If you believe global warming to be a scam, read Merchants of Doubt.

And if you do not believe global warming is a scam, read these links......

Obama's involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670

Global Warming Petition Project

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

The recommendations for fluoride supplementation in children are a recommendation of the ADA and not the American Academy of Pediatrics.

A competent pediatrician will know which local water systems contain fluoride and will know where his patient lives. Then they will make recommendations for fluoridetreatments based on this information. If your pediatrician prescribes fluoride without asking which water system you get your water from, you should seek an new doctor.

I would agree. To be more specific and correct, fluoride recommendations originated with the ADA and were rubber stamped by the AAP.

In the '90's the pediatricians were giving prescriptions for fluoride to infants without knowing if the child was already meeting the recommended minimum of .7 ppm That is where the problem was. Physicians should not be writing prescriptions for anything to do with the oral cavity. That should be left to people with proper training.

Because omission of relevant facts is something the media learned from the legal profession. The media is owned by those who have an agenda to dumb down the population and ultimately mass murder them known as "eugenicists".

"....omission of relevant facts ...." isn't that what our government supports?

I hear ya. The filters to remove fluoride can get quite expensive. I buy my water from a local company that according to their and my own test, does not contain it. Before, everytime I would go to cook with water (to make pasta or what not), I felt I was poisoning myself. The level in my town is 1.39ppm, the maximum level allowed. It's a shame we have to put up with this. I'm looking into getting a petition together to present to my city council about either reducing or eliminating this poison from our water.

The Berkey guy sells fluoride filters in the acessories section.

directive21.com

Actually there should be NO fluoride at all in the water because it's documented to be very toxic that actually causes low IQ's. The gov't is dumbing down the population deliberately. It's a very dangerous thing.

How "Dumb" do we have to be to make them happy?

Aren't Americans dumb enough already?

uh....wait, what?...

moonbeamracer, you made the very best comment that I have seen in a while.

MerryGoRound, there is already fluoride found naturally in water. Also, can you cite your sources for the fluoride caused low IQ and deliberate dumbing down of American citizens?

Thank you for your post. Many Americans won't believe you because they've had too much flouridated water so their stunted.

I've heard that also about Hitler and flouride, you can yell as loud as you want but people just aren't listening, you can point out the 500,000 caskets in Georgia and people ignore you, our government is a monster and are pure evil, I don't warn anyone anymore, I just try to think of ways to prepare my family for the coming storm since no one else seems to be listening.

500,000 caskets in Georgia? Do tell...

LESLIE-322472

Don't give up. Preach daily. Start with family and friends. Once you get the hang of it preach at gas stations and Walmart, where ever you got people standin and waiting. Ain't got much time left!

In a convoluted way, we now are directly witnessing the results of such things as fluoride ingestion.

fgh I'll buy that assumption. I'm living proof. lol At least I can admit it. Beck made me do it.

My guess is no, I say that because it sounds like your family is getting less flouride than most people, if its not in your water and your not taking flouride drops and its only in your toothpaste, my guess is the mouth sores are just a thing- you got them, he gets them, I don't know if its a hereditary thing or not but my guess is its not related to the minimal amount of flouride intake.

Actually, after I posted this, I googled it and there apparently IS acknowledgment within the scientific community that flouride containing toothpaste might be the cause of canker sores. I'm going to talk to our family dentist about this and show him what I found. These sores can be ferocious and HUGE and I feel so bad every times he gets an eruption. Sometimes he as 3 or 4 at a time.

You could be reacting to the chemical in the toothpaste called sodium laryl sulfate. It can cause mouth sores in some people. Look for a toothpaste without it, like Rembrandt's for Canker Sore Sufferers or another called Biotene for Dry Mouth. Neither of these have that chemical. Some of the toothpastes for babies don't have it either. Read the labels and give it several weeks to see if it makes a difference.

Try taking the supplement L-Lysine, it helps tremendously with canker sores.

Fiscal,

I would say your mouth sores are either Canker or "cold sores" caused by Herpes type I or II virus. If you were a carrier and many people are without ever showing symptoms, you probably passed it onto your son. Your doctor can run tests to tell you and there are treatments to reduce outbreaks. I doubt that it is the fluoride in the toothpaste that is causing the outbreaks, but more likely something you eat or the toothpaste changing your mouths PH level.

This article should have noted that today almost every toothpaste brand contains fluoride, which wasn't the case when municipal fluoridation of water started 60 years ago. Second is more people now brush their teeth at least once a day, some even the 2or 3 times dentist recommend. That means more fluoride from toothpaste. It is the standard case of unintended consequences. People have better general oral hygiene through education, so need for fluoride in water is reduced. Toothpaste manufactures use Fluoride as selling point. Thus you get this "fluoride overdose". However, people are having fewer cavities and thus less tooth lose, so is kind of a trade off. My teeth were permanently stained because I was given Tetracycline as a child back in the 60's, before they found out that it caused that "little" side effect in children's perminant teeth. Had to have that first generation of kids get permanent teeth that were "Yellow/Brown". Not as bad as the Thalidomide birth-defects problem, but same type of thing. Problem only appeared in humans, not in the animal or other tests before release.

Virginia - thanks, but I've tried the L-Lysine and it didn't help at all.

htd, I stated in my original post that we're fairly certain that the sores are caused by a virus. But it's possible that there are environmental triggers that bring on more frequent attacks and/or cause large numbers of the ulcers to appear or make them especially large, deep and painful.

I'm going to try the toothpaste with SLS and see what happens.

htdjpf .... thoughtful post!

Wow...Not in the Union...but here is a lesson for you ol' timer...

"Fluoride has been, and remains to this day, one of the largest environmental liabilities of the phosphate industry. The source of the problem lies in the fact that raw phosphate ore contains high concentrations of fluoride, usually between 20,000 to 40,000 parts per million (equivalent to 2 to 4% of the ore).

When this ore is processed into water-soluble phosphate (via the addition of sulfuric acid), the fluoride content of the ore is vaporized into the air, forming highly toxic gaseous compounds (hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride).

They call them "wet scrubbers" - the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. [...] after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation."

Not exactly table salt.

There are several elements that are poisonous separately, but completely safe in compounds, such as sodium chloride.

Thanks, fgh...I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it! Kudos!