wake_up_bomb wrote:
Well I won't be buying his book - that would be a waste of money as i'm hardly going to suddenly engage in studying the scientific literature on flouride. But since you obviously have access to it, maybe you could cite some? They're probably difficult to access as you generally need one of those journal passes, but it would be interesting to know what longitudinal studies exist.
As I said ages ago, it seems pretty clear to me that controlled longitudanal studies demonstrating the adverse health effects in areas that have already had it for some time seems the most logical way of determining if it is indeed risky. It's not nice to think of human guinea pigs, but it's been done and done for years, so the results of this should be known by now. It does seem clear to me many studies say it does improve dental health, others apparently say it does not. Who is correct I do not know. But as I said, I don't see that as being a strong justification as I believe encouraging personal dental care is preferable.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yeah you said. I was just pointing out you posted an article that kind of argues against you.

dogsmilk wrote:
The only studies that show any benefit of fluroide use are TOPICAL not ingested

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I'll always remember that guy saying ...'Hadley, bowling slightly into the breeze' in his weird accent.
I fucking hate cricket too... but that made me piss myself for some daft reason. It just made the game seem so... futile!

Anyway, are we getting another Fantasy football going on the forum?

andyh wrote:
Well the literature review I linked to earlier that claims it's beneficial was based on 77 studies. I can't access the full thing and am not qualified to say if it's methodologically accurate anyway. But just typing words into google gets hits saying it does. I just googled again and this was top of the list
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826212037.htm

Whether it's correct I can only reiterate I have no qualifications to judge, but it seems it's simply false to say the "only studies that show any benefit of fluroide use are TOPICAL not ingested".

dogsmilk wrote:
i have a fluoride study for you guys. its called usa. soon you'll all be fat and stupid.

dogsmilk wrote:
How about the CDC?

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm

' However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children (1). These mechanisms include 1) inhibition of demineralization, 2) enhancement of remineralization, and 3) inhibition of bacterial activity in dental plaque (1).'

Fluoride from topical sources such as fluoridated drinking water is taken up by cariogenic bacteria when they produce acid. Once inside the cells, fluoride interferes with enzyme activity of the bacteria and the control of intracellular pH. This reduces bacterial acid production, which directly reduces the dissolution rate of tooth mineral.

And bear in mind...thats a PRO fluoridation article lol...

batou wrote:
Soon?

Space Bandit wrote: Have you ever heard that Australian guy who takes off Richie Benaud? Much though I love Richie, it's very good:



The thread is here:

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/Members-Chat-Are...-League-2012-13.html

Also this-
www.keepers-of-the-well.org/product_pdfs/JADA_Featherstone2.pdf

The ADA itself no less...

and then there's this little snippet that explains a lot-
'but alas the dental industry has no responsibilities in other health arenas, so this publication may never be seen as the appropriate venue for that discussion.'

Do you see the epic stupidity that can happen dogsmilk?
Each separate section of the health industry battles its own corner regardless of the rest as a whole.
And people wonder why I call it 'deathcare' .

andyh wrote:
I think I may have misunderstood what you meant by "topical" Andy. But yes you've linked to something that is strongly arguing flouride in water combats tooth decay. The text is full of claims it does. The ingestion is incidental., it argues the act of ingesting it does help though. Weirdly, I've always been kinda sceptical of that idea myself. I always thought not spitting out toothpaste straight away is better than water passing over your teeth rapidly, but you have linked to something that contradicts that notion.

dogsmilk wrote:
There's only 2 possible ways ingestion could 'help' as such.
1) With teeth that are in the process of growing.
2) With the body excreting ingested fluoride in saliva.

There is nothing that magically passes fluoride in to your teeth otherwise and ofc no mention of why we use pea sized amounts and discourage swallowing with children brushing their teeth and no mention of any affects it might be having on old people who have no teeth

andyh wrote:
Ok I might be coming around to the idea flouride in water does help teeth, but i also stand my belief personal dental hygiene is better.

dogsmilk wrote:
Eh?

Fluoride in water does not help teeth, in toothpaste and other topically applied products it has a chance at helping prevent caries.
At the end of the day simply not eating shitloads of sweets (which british and american kids do) and brushing your teeth regularly is all thats required.
If the best that water can offer is the split second its in your gob before you swallow it then it should obviously not be added to the water as the effect is counter productive overall and no investigation will ever be produced of the effect it has on people with no teeth whatsoever.
The reason why should be self evident...there is no profit in having such an investigation.
There is financial gain to be had in fluoridating water just as there is to be had from toothpaste.
Your overall health is of little interest to the BDA or the ADA.

andyh wrote:
Well what you linked to claimed

Whether that singular claim is correct or not I do not know. It does contradict what it generally said about children's teeth improving with flouride, including the multiple studies referenced on the page you linked to. But note it's specifying tooth development. Oddly you've just contradicted a claim on anoither page you've linked to.

But it's commonly claimed/.understood flouride inhibits the formation of bacteria on the teeth and strengthens tooth enamel. We do not need to "excrete" it. Indeed, I fail to see why it matters if flouride is present in the saliva or present because it was put there. If it's there, it's there. Or what am I missing. I'm a bit tired now.

LOL. how the fuck did I end up talking about this? Man, the shit you find youreslf getting into on the internet...

andyh wrote:
So why do you keep linking to stuff that says its presence in water is beneficial? Why did you post this if you disagree without even saying why all the studies it cites are flawed?

I agree it's better to not eat too many sweets though. I'll go you one further - sugar is in so many things it's a nightmare if you want to avoid it. Like baked beans and stuff like that. That shit is everywhere.

And I think there's some confusion over "topical". I'd agree in seeing toothpaste as "topical", but it seems fwater is seem as "topical" too, I guess as it's passing over and some it remains in contact with the teeth.

Dogsmilk....topical means applied directly to the tooth.
Systemic means ingested.

Generally speaking we drink water, we don't hold it in our gobs for hours on end.
I hope that clears it up a little, lol

You'll also note that it seems to be yourself who is confused let me quote the article text you used below again..

' He cites, as an example of the weak pre-​eruptive
effects of fluoride, a study of two groups of Okinawa nursing students
which showed that there was no difference in caries status between those
who had received fluoridated water only until about 5 to 8 years of age (and none
thereafter) and those who had never received fluoridated drinking water.'

So the guy from the ADA is saying both that the ADA have no interest in any health aspects of fluoride other than teeth and he is also clearly admitting that there's bugger all difference between kids that do have fluoridated water and those that don't.

The reason why some other countries without fluoridated water seem to have such good teeth is in all inevtiablility simply down to difference in diet.

batou wrote:
You obviously haven't been here. Many of us already are.

But man - the food portions you get in the states are obscene. And you get soft drinks in like buckets. I couldn't believe the amount I saw people eating over there in those all you can eat buffet places.

guys dont you know? stare at the sun and you dont need to eat or drink lol

dogsmilk wrote: