1988RedT2 wrote: ...I have yet to hear convincing proof of the causes of a virtual epidemic of modern-day afflictions, such as Alzheimers, autism, allergies, and diabetes....
You want the causes of these epidemics?
Are you sure?
Well... if you are brave... I have the cause for you here... if you are brave enough to look:
(entirely SFW)
Javelin wrote:
How much of that downward trend can be attributed to the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste? As best I can tell, fluoride in toothpaste became fairly widespread after the 1960s, and has the most prophylactic effect if used when young.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/howthingswork/a/How-Fluoride-Works.htm
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/9/670.pdf
Javelin wrote: I know that most home filtering units (Brita, Pur, etc) won't do it. Reverse osmosis, distillation, and activated alumina are the main ways of treating it, but which is worth going for? Should I do a whole-hose filter (as boiling water concentrates the fluoride), or just do an under-sink or refrigerator one (we have a water spout in the fridge)? Anybody else do this? Or should I just go full-granola and install rain barrels and stop buying water from the man?
Not according to a dentist I visited. Not sure if this myth is confirmed or busted. To the internet!
In reply to Brett_Murphy:
And that's a-ok. Fluoridated toothpaste is the topical for of administration that's recommended by the CDC. I use it and have no problem with it. Wee one still brushes with just water, but she'll get the paste too, eventually.
There's just no reason to drink the stuff.
Wellllll that didn't take long...
From Brita's website...
BRITA products have no effect on the fluoride content of water.
Although I have no real opinion on fluoridation, I'd like to see a study that compared instances of tooth decay in a modern American town that DID fluoridate verses one that DIDN'T. That would be a good place to start.
One thing that always bothers me ( as a chemist) is the media-scare driven attitude that any CHEMICAL is bad for you. It's all chemicals. Water is a 'chemical.' You and I are just bags of 'chemicals.' People put the chemical sodium chloride (notice the chlorine) and sucrose on their organic compounds before eating it to improve the taste.
Now, I work in the cleaning chemical business, so I'm not going to deny that there are chemicals out there that are really, really bad for you, and that they were sold and used for many years both irresponsibly and through lack of knowledge. The company I work for does a LOT of work to make sure the stuff we sell is better for the planet and the consumer than the alternatives.
But remember that too much dihydrogen monoxide in acute exposure is also guaranteed fatal. You can't breath water no mater how pure, and rattlesnake venom and arsenic are also all natural.
As for Jav's request, it's not something I would personally worry about, but I give him full props for looking for a way to handle it at a personal level.
And, yeah, RO is your best bet, but I'm not up on home filtration enough to give you any other leads.
Javelin wrote: Real, actual, peer-reviewed science says otherwise on the fluoride debate.
Citations? Fluoridealert.com seems to be pretty terrible at providing actual reference information in their articles.
I found a few studies done on fluoride in water on pubmed, here's one that you can view the full text of (if you want the full text of any others hit me up and I'll see what I can do).
Here's one that's a review of studies about fluoride and Down's: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC37313/
Here's another review, this one of general studies about fluoride safety: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/
I'd love to see the full text of any of your sources.
In reply to ultraclyde:
Back when I worked in aviation, I was raving about how great some of the new materials and processes were and how safe they were.
An oldtimer stopped me in my tracks when he said: "When I was your age, asbestos was harmless".
Trans_Maro wrote: An oldtimer stopped me in my tracks when he said: "When I was your age, asbestos was harmless".
And so was smoking. Just because people (IMO) were willfully ignorant doesn't mean they are nearly as much now.
In reply to HiTempguy:
The asbestos thing wasn't willful ignorance, people honestly didn't know it caused cancer.
Don't be ignorant.
Trans_Maro wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: The asbestos thing wasn't willful ignorance, people honestly didn't know it caused cancer. Don't be ignorant.
Sorry, I think I worded that poorly. Thinking you could inhale smoke and it be ok for you is silly (asbestos wasn't). My point is, at best HIS point is a strawman.
I just had to read some background information on this. It seemed so far fetched that it could not be true, but it is to a certain degree.
My lord man, where we gonna put the criminals if we fill the jails all up with water hoarders and pot smokers!
More proof that the system if FUBAR.
You'll need to log in to post.
