FLOURIDATION – healthy or not?
FLOURIDATION – healthy or not?
What do you know about FLOURIDATION? Do you think it’s a good idea or are you worried about this process.
I’ve just watched a documentary and now I’m concerned the process is probably not such a great idea.
The flouride is added to water in the form of Hexaflourosilicic acid, a waste product from the industrial processes used in making fertilizers.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is also commonly used for water fouridation in several countries including the United States, Great Britain, and Ireland. In the U.S., about 40,000 tons of fluorosilic acid is recovered as waste from phosphoric acid plants, and then used primarily in water fluoridation, sometimes after being processed into sodium silicofluoride.
There’s scientific evidence to study and the economic, social and political background which leads me to think this is a massive con.
Edward Bernays, the man who has been called the father of public relations and who worked to promote smoking for women and the propaganda behind a coup in Guatemala, was employed to push this process onto the American public.
Anyway, don’t believe me, watch some of this movie,
a documentary film about the water flouridation controversy which arises from moral, ethical, political, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. Then see what you think.
The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation. Instead, fluoride is added to most table salt in Europe.
In the UK, my area the West Midlands, is part of the 10% that uses this process.
DOG Sharon 
Been drinking fluoridated water for 60 years, now. I figure it helped since I’m really lazy about taking care of my teeth.
Truly scientific studies say the same thing.
Shows I’m right.
September 24, 2012 at 5:25 am
Great. What do you mean by ‘truly scientific’? Several of the folk on the film were scientists – chemists and water treatment specialists. UNICEF and other authoritive bodies have doubts as well. Don’t you think that as the flouride is a by-product of the fertilizer making process, there’s a possible conflict of interest and the need for independent studies? The scientists said it was impossible to do studies in the USA because powerful lobbies stopped research.
September 24, 2012 at 9:44 am
Were they peer-reviewed studies or opinion? There is the world of difference,
As a conservative but educated guess, I would bet the number of follow-on peer-reviewed studies since the introduction of fluoride to be in the thousands.
September 24, 2012 at 11:37 am
Well, that’s what the debate is about – the opponents argue the original studies were deeply flawed, but the results are merely reproduced and it’s impossible to get research funding to run more research.
I had no opinion on this issue until I started reading and viewing the arguments.
Thanks for taking the trouble to share your thoughts and experiences mate
September 24, 2012 at 11:46 am
As a general rule, peer reviewed studies and their publishers never “reproduce” previous results. I fear you don’t understand the requirements of an essentially deliberate process, the weight of peer judged processes vs people who haven’t any studies to validate their fears.
Studies are performed all the time to check what is, what happened. What might be – is easy to check from those data.
September 24, 2012 at 12:07 pm
I do understand the concept, but the arguments against flouridation are that powerful interest groups block proper scientific challenges.
In this case, studies are not done all the time – it has become dogma. Most of the world does not use this process.
September 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Most of the world cannot read or write or have access to pure water.
September 24, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Most of the world are literate, and 45 nations come in above the US which is equal with Puerto Rico. It’s true many nations don’t have access to fresh clean water, I believe many Americans are fighting fracking proposals that might leave them in the same situation. How is that germane to the discussion?
September 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Just a snap response to the “most of the world” argument.
Most of the world relies on mediocre education. The two leading nations are diametrically opposite in how they achieve what they achieve, e.g., Finland and Singapore.
Most of the world has nothing to do with a discussion like that one – where BTW I haven’t come to a conclusion myself, either.
US literacy, education, is a pet topic here as you know. I don’t think we’re on the way to any solution at all.
September 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm
OK, now that I’m back from my 2nd walk of the morning, 2nd coffee of the morning, sitting before the desktop – skeptical arguments regardless of theory advanced on a topic essentially requiring a medical/scientific decision must be based on sound science.
Saying you can’t raise the funds for a study is a copout. First, because few if any studies should be premised on anything other than acquiring information – not proving a point. Second, it’s a copout because you can raise money for just about any study – someone in the EU or US will pop for a study on whether or not the presence of prairie dogs increased the likelihood of bubonic plague in the 19th Century. [Yes, it did]
I have yet to see a skeptic of fluoridation advance a theory that hasn’t been examined dozens of times in the last 60 years. I’ve been personally involved and committed to clean environment struggles for 45 years, now – since the first Earth Day. And there were anti-fluoridation folks at that event – 10/15 years after the process became common back in New England.
Studies have been made and remade. There have been studies every decade here in New Mexico on fluoridation in the northern part of the state. The same people raise the same questions every time – and fail to produce evidence that counters the studies done by the Public Health Service.
Believe me, I require more than a modicum of study to come to an opinion on scientific studies. Once that’s reached to my satisfaction, the burden of proof lies with the skeptic. And simply advancing a plausible sounding theory isn’t sufficient.
That doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t investigate further. It just means I’m satisfied with what I’ve read on the topic over 60 years.
When it first came up at my childhood home, we lived in a community that was first below the regional reservoir. And we put our drinking water in containers for 24 hours before use because of the amount of chlorine then in use. There was sufficient science to support that decision – borne out over following decades – and now the amount of chlorine used is much less.
Fluoridation has received more study than chlorine – at least in the States – and no recommendations for change have come down the pike.
September 24, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Sadly I know far more about fluoridation than I would wish to. This is due to being a public sector employee and having to publicise issues with which you don’t agree (eg nuclear power). Part of the push for fluoridation in the UK, as I recall was because areas in which there was naturally occuring luoridated water had lower levels of tooth decay.
It’s rather like adding folic acid to flour because pregnant women don’t eat the correct foods so the rest of us have to suffer.
If governments spent more money on a) education and b) honest information (hatiha) there would be no need for all this expensive and extremely annoying nanny state intervention erosion of personal choice and civil liberties.
I think it’s time for my breakfast.
October 3, 2012 at 6:49 am
Bon appetite!
What struck me as crazy about flouridation was that putting it in the water was probably not the best way to achieve the desired outcomes. I don’t think there’s any doubt it can protect teeth, but according to this doc, it’s only by contact – not via the bloodstream so the great majority of the chemical doesn’t hit the target area.
I’m in the West Mids and Severn Trent are one of the water authorities that do flouridate.
Time to make the organic porridge now…
October 3, 2012 at 8:10 am