I'm disappointed in TWW. We should give Mr. Goldenrule a warmer welcome, and this is the perfect forum to discuss the issue with him.

We've already been watching your youtube videos for months, actually.
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=635436

I consider fluoridation a way to sneak socialized medicine into our society, and I like it. Poor people probably need it, and rich people that can afford good dental care can also afford to filter their water. It's a win-win situation.

However, there's nothing wrong with opposing it on fundamental libertarian principles. There's good reason that riparian law is among the oldest; you don't fuck with another man's water. You seem to be an extremely motivated speaker and have obviously drawn numerous others to your cause, which is impressive in terms of political organization. I encourage you to speak here.

4/14/2013 9:25:34 PM

Look. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories and I don't have tin foil hats sitting around the house, and I could are less if there is fluoride in my water. But how could you possibly think that the government putting anything in our water outside of purification processing is a good idea? People put way too much trust in the government.

4/15/2013 7:32:22 AM

wait, smc is the one ITT who thinks the water fluoridation is safe? That's funny.

4/15/2013 8:35:56 AM

Quote :

"However, there's nothing wrong with opposing it on fundamental libertarian principles."

I would also assume that libertarians would be opposed to any government imposed drinking water standards. would they also be opposed to municipal water supply systems?

4/15/2013 9:49:46 AM

there is already a lounge thread, this is a duplicate thread

4/15/2013 10:22:14 AM

Quote :

"But how could you possibly think that the government putting anything in our water outside of purification processing is a good idea?"

Not being ignorant of the science behind flouridation?

4/15/2013 10:40:19 AM

Maybe when we have materials lining most of the piping in the water system that actively can kill fungi and bacteria, we can start pumping pure water (with added minerals).

It then there will be people coming up with theories about mineralization of water will kill you.

4/15/2013 10:47:21 AM

you have the choice to drink or not to drink the water. this is the product they are selling and you can buy or not buy as much as you want.

besides, it makes your teeth healthier.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2013 10:49:37 AM

^ sources?

4/15/2013 11:20:53 AM

the water you buy from the city is going to be a lot less contaminated than water you pump out from under your property (the degree to which depends on where you live)

4/15/2013 11:27:16 AM

My parents' well in clayton always had really clean tasting water.

Which was surprising because I'd assume all the farms around would mean badly tainted ground water.

http://m.americancityandcounty.com/water/urination-reservoir-drained-20110622

And the there are the city supplies with dead animals and paint cans.

4/15/2013 12:20:45 PM

SMC,

Thanks for the thread. I'd be happy to discuss anything you want. Based on your original post I fully expect the level of discourse here to be elevated as compared to The Lounge.

I've been at this since December 2011 when I made a (not)routine visit to the Dentists office. This is elaborated in an I think Awesome manner throughout the 7.5 minute investigative news piece produced by Durham ABC affiliate WTVD Channel 11 November, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REnWEUipZCA


[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 10:37 PM. Reason : link]

4/15/2013 10:36:38 PM

does using something like a "zero" water filter get rid of it?

4/15/2013 11:04:21 PM

I haven't looked into the Zero, so I don't know. I use a Berkey Filter with a special element on it (as seen in the video), but I am aware that even this will not remove all that I want it to.

The best way to be sure you have no nasties whatsoever is to distill your water. I plan on getting one sometime soon.

4/15/2013 11:25:11 PM

Drinking distilled water long term is bad for your health, it leeches electrolytes, and other minerals from your body.

4/15/2013 11:39:17 PM

but that's better than having a few white spots on your teeth!

and feeding the fertilizer company/local government schemes

4/16/2013 1:42:48 AM

its funny that this topic can't make 10 posts without sarcasm it's that dumb...

4/16/2013 8:01:06 AM

its also that duplicated in multiple sections against forum rules

4/16/2013 8:39:26 AM

All of the other threads were locked when I made this one. Somehow the lounge thread became unlocked soon after. I thought The Soap Box would be the ideal place to discuss this, and forgave the multiple section mistake by a new user that didn't know the rules.

4/16/2013 11:21:54 AM

you forgave them, you're a mod?

4/16/2013 11:28:23 AM

damn smc, you've forever affected the quality of tww by wasting one of its few remaining threads from the thread storage facility

back down to infinite threads remaining

4/16/2013 12:36:41 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

Quote :

"If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought. "

Quote :

"You might think, then, that fluoridated water's efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact. The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month. The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either."

So the only possible reason to continue putting flouride in the water - preventing tooth decay - is really not a well supported reason at all.

6/30/2015 4:51:56 PM

Here we go again.

6/30/2015 5:01:17 PM

6/30/2015 5:10:17 PM

Would it kill you to read the article and make comments? I'm not making an argument here, just re-posting something I've seen generate a lot of discussion elsewhere.

6/30/2015 5:19:36 PM

This means the motivation all along was...DEATH

6/30/2015 8:34:43 PM

It's reasonable to periodically reevaluate long standing public health issues, but thegoldenrul is still a nut job.

6/30/2015 10:10:39 PM

http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-to-prevent-tooth-decay

read the actual abstract... looks like there are so many goldenrul nutjobs running rampant they weren't able to get good numbers. (and it looks like this was not a study they conducted, rather a review of previous studies)

7/1/2015 12:14:38 AM

i don't think anyone has a problem with new studies to account for new oral health behaviors, and the only real conclusion you can reach from their review is that we should do new studies

7/1/2015 10:10:06 AM

lest we forget: http://bullcitybulletin.com/

7/1/2015 1:05:30 PM

Can this thread and the likes of it go away? Every few weeks this and the abortion thread surface like a bad case of herpes.

7/1/2015 1:08:27 PM

Is there such a thing as a good case of herpes?

7/2/2015 12:34:35 AM

http://m.livescience.com/1539-good-herpes.html

Lol. If the plague breaks out

7/2/2015 8:16:47 AM

^^^This thread is from April 2013, is only one page long and has only been bumped once.
And the abortion thread has been dormant for over four months

But I know there are several other fluoridation threads in different sections. But to be honest, I got a lot of entertainment out of those threads and the "debates" with thegoldenrul.

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2015 12:32:17 PM

I don't think children drink tapwater anymore. Only soda. They should flouridate soda.

Product # of samples Avgerage Fluoride Concentration Range of Fluoride Concentrations Study
Juice 43 1.03 ppm 0.15-6.8 ppm Stannard 1991
Juice 532 0.56 ppm 0.02-2.80 ppm Kiritsy 1996
Juice 24 0.69 ppm 0.16-1.08 Turner 1998
Soda 12 0.78 ppm 0.68 – 0.91 ppm Turner 1998
Soda 105 0.74 ppm 0.07-1.37 ppm Pang 1992
Soda 332 0.72 ppm 0.02-1.28 ppm Heilman 1999

Coca-Cola

79 0.70 ppm 0.02-1.10 ppm Heilman 1999

Dr. Pepper

47 1.02 ppm 0.70-1.28 ppm Heilman 1999

Pepsi Cola

104 0.60 ppm 0.02-1.22 ppm Heilman 1999
Gatorade 13 0.85 ppm 0.02-1.04 ppm Pang 1992
Gatorade 1 1.08 ppm — Turner 1998

“Seventy-one percent of the [sodas] had fluoride levels exceeding 0.60 ppm, which is considered to contain sufficient fluoride so that dietary fluoride supplements are contraindicated.”
SOURCE: Heilman JR, et al. (1999). Assessing fluoride levels of carbonated soft drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 130(11):1593-9.

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 10:03 PM. Reason : ,]

7/2/2015 9:35:11 PM