Talk:Water fluoridation

From RationalWiki

Before you get started on critiques, make sure you check out the Baloney Argument guide. THe fact that the ADA approves it is a good thing, not a bad thing.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 00:28, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Woo?

Someone added this to category:woo. Does anyone know why? human^{be in} 12:22, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

I dunno. I keep on meaning to work on this page, but never seem to get around to it. I vote to un-woo(?) this page. Sterile 13:01, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

I would vote to un-woo, too. Daecon 04:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Me too, though I can sorta see their logic. Seems this is more "fearmongering" than "woo" -- this time the evidence is in favor of the "medicine" and the crackpots are saying it's dangerous. Best fit I can think of (aside from creating something like category:anti-woo) is toxins, which it's already in.--Chupi 02:04, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Criticism

"Most health effect arguments against water fluoridation (such as toxicity and mottled teeth) base their assumptions on much higher doses of fluoride than are allowed in tap water." Isn't it also dependent on how much tap water someone consumes? Obviously they would be getting a much higher dose, perhaps approaching the toxicity limit? Daecon 04:56, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not expert (to the slightest), but I think some effects are concentration dependent (mottled teeth?) independent of total dose (x ppb in the water vs. total consumed x mg) and some are dosage dependent. Sterile^snore!

[edit] Alternative conspiracy

Do you have an explanation for the conspiracy theory that there has always been fluoride in our water, and that the government only claims to put it in there so people will be content, because they are to lazy to start more water purification systems?^{— Unsigned, by: 144.92.44.153 / talk / contribs}

Just a question: If that were really the case, why haven't they done it with anything else so far? ("Yeah, we'll be adding a bit of nitrate to your water. It's good for your... kidneys. Trus us.") --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:48, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually the way that "they" found that fluoride is both good at certain doses and bad at higher doses was to investigate the natural mineral amounts of fluoride and their effects on people's teeth. So in a (vague, rather tangential) sense, you are right (except it's not a conspiracy). Sterile^snore!

"...water purification systems"? Fluoridation is not a purification system, it doesn't make water cleaner or safer. It just helps people's teeth. ħuman ^ingenuity 18:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Which I'm sure human, as a brit, can appreciate...-- -PalMD ^{--Does this sig line make me look fat?} 18:37, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Luckily I grew most of my adult teeth stateside ;) Completely irrelevantly, I think (some of) my brother's teeth were discolored when he was young by some antibiotic or other. ħuman ^{be in} 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

If it wasn't lead, it was probably tetracycline.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 19:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)