Water Fluoridation

by still thinking 136 Replies latest jw friends

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    When water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride’s main benefit to teeth came from being swallowed during the tooth-forming years. This belief that fluoride’s primary benefit was “systemic” and “pre-eruptive.” A “systemic” benefit is one that comes from ingesting fluoride, and a “pre-eruptive” benefit is one that occurs by swallowing fluoride before the teeth erupt into the mouth. The premise underlying this belief was that, since ingesting fluoride increased the fluoride content of the teeth, the teeth would be more resistant to decay for life.

    Although this “systemic” paradigm was the premise that launched water fluoridation and fluoride supplementation programs, it has now been discarded by the dental research community. Today, as noted by the following studies, the overwhelming consensus by dental researchers is that fluoride’s primary effect is topical, not systemic, and that this topical effect occurs after the teeth have erupted into the mouth (i.e., post-eruptive), not before. There is no need, therefore, to swallow fluoride, especially during infancy and early childhood. As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated in 1999 “fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.” The National Research Council has concurred, stating in 2006 that “the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic.”

    For a discussion on how fluoride works topically, and how scientists came to disprove the systemic theory, click here.


  • still thinking
    still thinking

    LOL, you are such a hippy, still thinking! I love flouride- yum yum!

    I didn't see ya there trans...how ya doing? Long time no see. I'll see if I can find some fluoride lollies to send you...

  • mP


    Hamilton: Somehow i doubt that Hamilton a city with probably 5 traffic lights has the resources to perform any research. You can walk from one end to another in less than 30 minutes. They probably dont even have a lab there.

  • sammielee24

    Bottom line. The water system that every life source must depend on to survive, should not be purposely tainted or altered with a toxic substance aka fluoride.

    There have been smaller studies that are now sourcing the use of fluoride to increasing numbers of alzheimers..of course the scientific community and health community will argue for another twenty years when in fact, they could stop dumping the crap in the water tomorrow and do in lab clinical studies instead. Money talks.

    Following is an article from the Harvard Publich Health -

    Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children


    July 25, 2012 — For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain. Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.

    The study (also available at this link) was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012.

    The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China. Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S., said lead author Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH.

    Even though many of the studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete, the authors consider the data compilation and joint analysis an important first step in evaluating the potential risk. “For the first time we have been able to do a comprehensive meta-analysis that has the potential for helping us plan better studies. We want to make sure that cognitive development is considered as a possible target for fluoride toxicity,” Choi said.

    Choi and senior author Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, and their colleagues collated the epidemiological studies of children exposed to fluoride from drinking water. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure database also was included to locate studies published in Chinese journals. They then analyzed possible associations with IQ measures in more than 8,000 children of school age; all but one study suggested that high fluoride content in water may negatively affect cognitive development.

    The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.

    Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

    * This sentence was updated on September 5, 2012.

  • jgnat

    St. Albert, I believe, also stopped flouridating it's water. Based on public pressure. Not evidence. If your friends all jumped off the bridge, would you?

    Pour the words on, still thinking, it can't overwhelm the study I provided.

    sammielee, "children in high-fluoride areas..." Well, yes. This would be areas where flouride is naturally occurring, and to be safe, the excess should be removed from the water.

    mP, true, true. The naturally occurring flouride would be coming from flourine. Sorry, I've lost the ability to post pictures or I would show what hexaflourosicilic acid looks like.

    I presented the pictures because I am a little sick of "chemicals" getting the blame. All we are is a bundle of complex "chemicals", most of which look a lot scarier than flouride. We happily take vitamins that also happen to be "chemicals". A rose by any other name...

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill

    While remaining rather sceptical towards this negative publicity about adding fluoride to public water supplies, there is something that I feel compelled to say here. According to Statistics New Zealand (June 2012 population estimates), New Zealand has 15 cities - not three, as has been claimed. Also, anybody that reckons Hamilton has only five traffic lights has very obviously never counted these for themselves! Likewise for the claim that you can walk from one end of the town to the other in 30 minutes. (Yeah - that I would like to see!) Hamilton does have its own research facilities, at the University of Waikato. Also, don't denigrate the Waikato Institute of Technology. (I happen to know something about that institution - it being where I obtained my Certificate of Engineering from). If - and it is a big if - these research facilities were not adequate enough, just 111 kilometres away are three excellent laboratories available in Auckland: Auckland University, Auckland University of Technology, and Manakau Institute of Technology. Contrary to what has been alleged, Hamilton does have the facilities to research this matter. Whether its decision to cease adding fluoride to its water supply is right or wrong, this decision has not been arrived at for lack of a suitable laboratory. Bill. PS: I am rather tempted to add a remark or two about the American tendency to rubbish everything non-American. However, there have been enough ad-hominem attacks made on this thread already, without me adding more!

  • finallysomepride

    From memory, a city in NZ has a population of 25,000+


    Here in Brisbane it's a very touchy subject, we have it, but many want it gone. Personally I would prefer to keep it but at a lower level than currently used.

    just my 2cents

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill


    You have a PM

  • finallysomepride

    thanks Bill

    reply sent

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Hamilton: Somehow i doubt that Hamilton a city with probably 5 traffic lights has the resources to perform any research. You can walk from one end to another in less than 30 minutes. They probably dont even have a lab there.

    What a silly comment...they have a university there. And it is one of our major cities. Do you honestly think the people who opposed fluoridation are only working in Hamilton? This has become a nationwide issue.

    [edited to add] sorry Bunji Bill and Finallysomeprid...I hadn't read your comments yet.

Share this