Poll: Anti-fluoride people are...
Conspiracy nuts
Wilfully ignorant
Seeking fame through controversy
Suitable for cannon-fodder
Factually incorrect
All of the above
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fluoridation
#1
Fluoridation is still subject to question, but only by people who will not or do not, understand the science.

We have over 60 years of study, and not a single one has found any health risks to do with fluoridation of water supplies. This is no surprise as there are many parts of the world with naturally high levels of fluoride and people have been drinking it for centuries.

The facts are simple:

Fluoride is safe and effective. http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

Opposition to it is illogical, counter-factual and is only embraced by poltroons.
Reply
#2
Congratulations on introducing yourself with a push-poll, that's novel. It does lack subtlety though. Good push-polls leave the voter unaware that they have just been conned.

Not that I disagree about fluoridation, I don't.

Reply
#3
The poll gave no option for those that may have reasonable objections.
And no Planet X option.

A shit poll, if i ever saw one.
Reply
#4
Two things on that, mate.

There are no reasonable objections.
I'm pleased there's no Planet X. It's an in-crowd thing.

I voted All of the Above.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#5
hoo-boy.
I've put the foot in the mouth this time.
(And sorry about the planet x quip. I had forgotten where I was.)

So, here's my defense of my statement, and i hope it keeps me from being lumped into a woo-bag:

1. This thread is in science, and it isn't how science is done. As comedy, it was pretty cool,and I would have no objection.
2. I have no big issue with flourine salts, and I realize they are common as a naturally occurring component in spring water.
3. I accept their beneficial role in preventing tooth decay, and their relative harmlessness as a public water supply additive.

(Here's where my objection comes from, and please allow that this isn't a big issue for me, nor have I followed the debate very much as it drags on.)

4. being as almost all tooth paste and mouth wash is already dosed with fluorides, and the benefits from them come from direct contact with teeth, and not from drinking water that also has the additive, how is this not redundant?
5. Are their any health benefits in drinking flourinated water,other than preventing tooth decay? (See # 4) Isn't this already handled well with tooth paste and mouth wash, wherein the consumer is expected to spit out the remainder after achieving good contact with the teeth?
6. is there any chance that the money trail of permitting the additives to drinking water (and toilet flushing water; clothes washing water, etc) may imply potential corruption not in keeping with the hard science?
7. Are these Fl salts common by-products of various industrial processes, and said manufacturers have merely found a lucrative side market for an otherwise useless by-product? (The answer to that is 'yes', imho.

Because i question this in no way means that I am anti-vaccination; pro big-foot; young-earth creationist, or any of the other unfortunate things that often get bunched together in what I see as knee-jerk skepticism.
As mentioned, this isn't a subject that interests me hugely or that I follow closely.

What remains important to me is to not rush to judgement or resort to ridicule, which, clearly, is the intent of the poll.
Also, as mentioned, had this been in a comedy forum, I wouldn't have been a stick in the mud.

Anyone care to tackle the points I raise?
I will be glad to be shown wrong.
Reply
#6
I like 7. It applies to other common household products.

I'd like to see your theory on the fluoride regarding question 7.
Reply
#7
There are all manner of manufacturing by-products, and powerful monetary incentives to find a home for them. Otherwise, they are a straight up negative for the manufacturing concern. Selling them, when possible, beats the hell out of paying for their disposal. As with so many things, economics has a way of polluting science.

Are you asking for other examples of this phenomena?
I could come up with several, but I don't want to come off as a conspiracy theory nut case.

btw, the science of the by-product industry can work both ways.
My son in law is an engineer, often tasked with making economic sense of otherwise costly technology. An example he has worked on is the scrubbing of coal powered energy exhausts. One of the by-products of this expensive endeavor is H2SO4...a commodity in its own right...and one that can be sold to off-set the cost of cleaning the exhaust.

This sort of thinking has some obvious plus sides...but it also can be prone to corruption...as,I suspect,might be the case in floridation of municipal water supplies. Do we need added Florine salts in the water we use to flush our toilets?
Or, is it merely a handy place to dump them, while creating revenue.

I'm not sure what you are asking me, but I'm happy to tackle it, if I can.
Reply
#8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0he-LZNzVg0

Sorry, couldn't resist.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#9
cool stuff, Sparks.

Reply
#10
(09-26-2014, 05:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  1. This thread is in science, and it isn't how science is done. As comedy, it was pretty cool,and I would have no objection.

Of course it isn't science. This is not a laboratory.

But yes, let's discuss it from a scientific perspective. That is what the subject usually lacks.

(09-26-2014, 05:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  (Here's where my objection comes from, and please allow that this isn't a big issue for me, nor have I followed the debate very much as it drags on.)

4. being as almost all tooth paste and mouth wash is already dosed with fluorides, and the benefits from them come from direct contact with teeth, and not from drinking water that also has the additive, how is this not redundant?

Unfortunately many children at the poverty line do not clean their teeth often enough, and while well known brands do contain fluoride, cheap toothpaste does not always. There are sufficient children falling through the gaps to make it worthwhile.

(09-26-2014, 05:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  5. Are their any health benefits in drinking flourinated water,other than preventing tooth decay? (See # 4) Isn't this already handled well with tooth paste and mouth wash, wherein the consumer is expected to spit out the remainder after achieving good contact with the teeth?

There don't appear to be any other benefits, no.

(09-26-2014, 05:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  6. is there any chance that the money trail of permitting the additives to drinking water (and toilet flushing water; clothes washing water, etc) may imply potential corruption not in keeping with the hard science?

Not as far as I am aware. It is extremely cheap to add to water in the minute quantities used and costs about $1 per person per year. I don't imagine that buys a lot of corruption.

It's also worth noting that the fluoride consumed is recycled by the body into saliva, so the effect on teeth is compounded far in excess of the other human parts.

I wonder if dogs have less decay now than pre-fluoridation? I don't know much about canine dentistry.

(09-26-2014, 05:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  7. Are these Fl salts common by-products of various industrial processes, and said manufacturers have merely found a lucrative side market for an otherwise useless by-product? (The answer to that is 'yes', imho.

You're talking about hexafluorosilicic acid? Yes it is a byproduct, but it also has uses in aluminium production, so it's not as though it would be thrown away otherwise. I believe the aluminium usage is many times that used in water fluoridation, but have no precise data.

Even in NY @ $20m/pa you're not making a fortune by the time production and quality has been completed along with packaging and transportation.

(09-26-2014, 05:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  Because i question this in no way means that I am anti-vaccination; pro big-foot; young-earth creationist, or any of the other unfortunate things that often get bunched together in what I see as knee-jerk skepticism.
As mentioned, this isn't a subject that interests me hugely or that I follow closely.

It would be a very silly person who dismissed someone on the basis of having valid questions.

(09-26-2014, 05:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  What remains important to me is to not rush to judgement or resort to ridicule, which, clearly, is the intent of the poll.
Also, as mentioned, had this been in a comedy forum, I wouldn't have been a stick in the mud.

That may be a reasonable point, although you would have to admit that it has enabled us to talk about some of the science.

I shall try to keep future threads on a less-comedic bearing. I have one under way thanks to the chaps on a television programme called "Mythbusters" wherein an experiment was completed that appeared to contravene my Third Law!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)