Skeptic Project

that thread you made at JREF about fluoride didn't go too well for the pro-fluoriders.

Really? I read the whole thing and while I still have some questions it seemed the anti-flouride camp didn't know what they were talking about, especially when it came down to the chemistry of it and definitely when they were very VERY badly trying to come up with a motive.

What stuck out for me is that they didnt understand that a small amount of something can be beneficial while a lot can be toxic while still not being a toxic substance. By the same definition and example I would use is morphine. In the thread they used the example of Iodine, probably more relevant as they add that to salt. But morphine is not required for survival, yet it is a very useful substance to use in certain medical situations and yet you can also relatively easily take a toxic dosage and kill yourself. The anti-flouride people would therefore have to call morphine a poison and say it shouldn't be used.

I also recall the discussion about natural fluoride and how they couldnt make up their minds how much fluoride was too much and that they didnt understand that the fluoride ion in calcium fluoride exactly the same in sodium fluoride. But that all got a bit technical for me, so what stood out is that they simultaneously said that they bush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste and that there was too much fluoride in the water. yet they couldnt explain how they rationalise all the left over fluoride that is left in the mouth after you brush.

Im not sure how you think they looked good...

Ed, what hurt the anti-fluoriders was the inclusion of CT nonsense into their arguments, as well as some newbie taker over late in the game. For the most part, the pro-fluoriders failed to properly respond to the most important question: is fluoride safe to ingest.

Is fluoride at the levels in our water safe? Probably. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to agree that it is safe enough. What I'd like to know is how beneficial is that small amount? Is it doing that much good as it passes our teeth? If it can't be shown that it's significantly beneficial, why is it in the water? Is this some way to get rid of waste product without harming the public or costing aluminum companies money? Is it that municipalities think it's helpful when it's not doing anything?

It's weird when dentists learn in school that it isn't doing very much for us as an additive to water. The removal of high amounts is one thing - that could very well prevent it from reaching toxic levels. It still doesn't explain why we don't just take it all out. Why is a specific level maintained if we don't have substantial evidence showing that it is beneficial? Why not remove it entirely?

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

is fluoride safe to ingest.

The point was that they did not provide evidence, despite repeated requests, that the amount in the water is UNSAFE, namely roughly 1pmm. And if it is then you're probably ingesting more than that with excess toothpaste everyday, so they should also ban fluoridated toothpaste.

It seems you are rather suseptible to CT's Aaron, maybe you should take a look at this:
http://www.doctorspiller.com/fluoride.htm</p>

Also read this and follow the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation</p>

Bear in mind that if it were unsafe then it necessitates a massive scientific conspiracy including, in this case, in the dental industry and a governmental conspiracy too. Because, you see, the government dont have much incentive to make their citizens sick. In fact since they put fluoride in mineral water and soft drinks too, as anti-fluoride guys will tell you, then the conspirators would be harming themselves as well not to mention that even they require competent people to do things for them, like fly planes for them. That doesn't work out too well if they are mentally ill due to all the fluoride you're giving them. As for the dental industry, if it didn't do anything, why would they advocate it? There's a lot of contradictory CTs going on if you are an anti-flourider.

So the fact that the conclusion above is utterly stupid should now give you a reason to think what they're saying is probably nonsense, so its best to wait until a real expert can explain it to you.

They are routed in the same anti-science junk that all these other CT's have. If it all looks and smells like the same crap it probably is.

EDIT: And dont forget its not all in the water. Countries that dont use water fluoridation also put it in their SALT for the same reason. There are some smart chemists on the JREF why don't you ask them some direct questions and see if they can explain it to you? That's what I did with 911, and while I didnt like their attitude at first I had to eventually admit that while I thought they were initially being difficult for the sake of it, they were right and had a reason to act that way.

Sure, but also look at the date

Also, I only wanted to know why they put it in the water, I didn't realise it really does help teeth. I also asked why they don't add vitamins, a simple answer is that it's far easier to come by vitamins. I was a different person then, I was also being lazy by asking when I couldn't be bothered to go look it up

Too much fluoride will turn your teeth dark brown long before it kills you. This is where the 19th century saying "Texas Teeth" comes from, the high levels of fluoride naturally in ground water in certain areas of the former Texas Republic and even outside that in Mormon territory.

CTs equate fluorisis with death, but that's not even close to the truth, that just means that you've taken in too much and now your teeth are brown. Ironically, from the CT perspective on things, people with Texas Teeth had far less tooth problems than those without it.

The fear and confusion both with CTs, skeptics, and normal people alike with fluoride is not unlike the same with food irradiation. It's better for people, but used incorrectly it can be dangerous, but it's highly unlikely people will drink 10 gallons of fluoridated water and 50 tubes of toothpaste, in the same level it's not likely they'll try to irradiate themselves in order to cure their runny nose.

Food irradiation is something we need to cover on this site, it's almost never done in the US and almost all food poisoning cases could have been prevented with it. Yet, the fear with it is that it turns food radioactive, not unlike how old people once believed microwaves turned food radioactive -- some people still do think this. People have the same belief still about fluoride, and interestingly enough, most people in the US still get less fluoride than they need, but it's helped a ton, especially in places where children drink mountain dew out of baby bottles (Appalachia).

I didn't say the anti's looked good. Rather, I said the pro's looked bad because they failed to tackle the anti's legitimate point (is fluoride safe to ingest) and constantly mocked the CT claims. If they came back and provided studies showing that it is indeed safe, then all is well. They looked bad by not doing that and instead joked about Hitler and some Dr. Lovestrange movie.

Perhaps it has less serious side effects? My point is I don't think the amount in water is harmful, but is it definitely beneficial? Have we concluded for sure that it improves teeth at the level recommended in water, or are we just going on correlations?

I will continue to drink tap water simply because it's cheap. Plus, the ample amounts of birth control traces will keep my social agenda going very smoothly.

I just find it strange that you have to go to certain lengths to find a legitimate explanation for why it's added to the water. We don't grow up knowing about this sort of stuff. If I hadn't seen CTs on the internet freaking out about it, I may have never known about the process.

dual purpose hydration

I agree with Ed on this, but what we're really talking about is a matter of personal opinion.

Questioning fluoride, in my opinion, is stupid. It isn't dangerous enough to warrant the speculation, but the speculation can quite possibly lead to some CT whackadoo glomming onto your argument and making you look like a whackadoo too. Or, you can look at it as you feeding into whackadoo shit in the first place. Why do it? There's really enough anti-fluoride woo out there without any of our help.

Same thing with questioning Israeli policies. I just don't really do it because the risk is way greater than the reward.

haha!