Fluoride in Drinking Water

[d-cat]

The only drinking water accessible to most people would be the water that the govt has complete control over.

yep, check out this story Orchard Dweller

Toxic Rocket Fuel Chemical In Drinking Water Can Stay Says Government
https://www.prisonplanet.com/toxic-r...overnment.html

I read in the L.A. Weekly a few months back that they are tripling the fluoride level in the drinking water there. People should search the word 'fluoride' together with 'nazi' and read up a bit on the information that comes up. If you ever wondered how the people of our nation could be led into multiple wars, economic collapse, and a fascist police state, while still flocking to BBQs and Disneyland, then this might be a contributing factor.

[Braggi]

... Toxic Rocket Fuel Chemical In Drinking Water Can Stay Says Government ...

Or to put it another way, " Naturally occurring mineral found at safe levels in drinking water."

It's always good to read up when a sensational headline appears. I must say, Waccobb keeps me on my toes. I've done more reading of research articles since I've come here ...

Anyway, the naturally occurring chemical in question does affect the thyroid in a powerful way which I'm sure isn't good for a person unless they happen to be hypothyroid, in which case it will be prescribed by an endocrinologist. Although the sensational term "toxic rocket fuel" suggests those evil doers that really do want to poison us all dump rocket fuel in our water supplies to accomplish that, when more likely, this substance, which occurs in Nature, as I mentioned, and is highly water soluble, gets into your tap water by way of fourth of July fireworks displays more than from any other source. How many government rockets are fired off in your watershed? None that I know of in mine. Every July, however, Healdsburg shoots off a couple of tons of that stuff and all the dust from that flows ... guess where? ... into the Russian River or into the ground water. Hmmmm. Wonder if they ever check the blood levels of the guys shooting off the rockets?

This snip from Wikipedia shows there is a lot to be learned and are still a lot of questions about this stuff:
Health effects

Perchlorate greatly impacts human health by interfering with iodide uptake into the thyroid gland. In adults, the thyroid gland helps regulate the metabolism by releasing hormones, while in children, the thyroid helps in proper development.
The NAS found that perchlorate only affects the thyroid gland. It is not stored in the body, it is not metabolized, and any effects of perchlorate on the thyroid gland are fully reversible once exposure stops[citation needed]. There has been some concern on perchlorates effects on fetuses, newborns and children, but several peer-reviewed studies on children and newborns also provide reason to believe that low levels of perchlorate do not pose a threat to these populations.[citation needed] On October 1, 2004, the American Thyroid Association (ATA) reported that perchlorate may not be as harmful to newborns, pregnant women and other adults as previously thought.[13]
A study involving healthy adult volunteers determined that at levels above 0.007 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-d), perchlorate can temporarily inhibit the thyroid gland’s ability to absorb iodine from the bloodstream ("iodide uptake inhibition", thus perchlorate is a known goitrogen).[14] The EPA converted this dose into a reference dose of 0.0007 mg/kg-d by dividing this level by the standard intraspecies uncertainty factor of 10. The agency then calculated a "drinking water equivalent level" of 24.5 ppb by assuming a person weighs 70 kilograms (154 pounds) and consumes 2 liters (68 ounces) of drinking water per day over a lifetime.[15] Thus, 25 ppb was set as the recommended drinking water standard (the DWEL). For that reason, most media reports call this the "safe" level of exposure. The NAS report also stated additional research would be helpful, but emphasized that the existing database on perchlorate was sufficient to make its reference dose recommendation and ensure it would be protective for everyone.[citation needed]
Recent research, however, has shown inhibition of iodide uptake in the thyroids of women at much lower levels, levels attainable from normally contaminated water and milk.[16] {end of Wikipedia quote}

It doesn't sound like anything I want in my drinking water at any significant level so I can understand the concern. However, tiny doses are natural and therefore probably not harmful, and are perhaps necessary for good health. The Govt. knows the folly of trying to eliminate a naturally occurring compound from water therefore it won't try. It's also worth noting that this stuff used to be added to chemical fertilizers decades ago and that could be a source in some groundwater.

Probably the best thing to do is not worry about it.

-Jeff

PS. Ya like the way they come up with those "safe" levels? This is not a very exact science, but, in their defense, the best way would be to feed it to a thousand people at varying levels and see at what levels people start getting sick. Oops, can't do that!

[lynn]

PS. Ya like the way they come up with those "safe" levels? This is not a very exact science, but, in their defense, the best way would be to feed it to a thousand people at varying levels and see at what levels people start getting sick. Oops, can't do that!

Ha!...What about the lab rats...?...I thought they were suppose to be good enough...?...

Oh d-cat!!!...I see red anytime I see articles about how wonderful flouride in the water is...it helps kids to not have cavities!...

Dang!...What about all the people who have to drink that damn water, and aren't a kid, and don't need the damn flouride!...

And guess what - gee, what a revelation!...It's suppose to be the parents responsibility to feed their kids decent food, not stuff 'em with sugar, and make' 'em brush their teeth - keeps the cavities away...If the darn parents are too lame to do that, and pediatricians and dentists aren't hammerin' the parents on those points, then tough noodles...

Other people shouldn't have to drink that junk, because of other lame parents...
I really hate the 'flouride in the water is so wonderful' bs!...

[Braggi]

PS. Ya like the way they come up with those "safe" levels? This is not a very exact science, but, in their defense, the best way would be to feed it to a thousand people at varying levels and see at what levels people start getting sick. Oops, can't do that!

Ha!...What about the lab rats...?...I thought they were suppose to be good enough...?...

Oh d-cat!!!...I see red anytime I see articles about how wonderful flouride in the water is...it helps kids to not have cavities!...

Dang!...What about all the people who have to drink that damn water, and aren't a kid, and don't need the damn flouride!... ... Other people shouldn't have to drink that junk, because of other lame parents...
I really hate the 'flouride in the water is so wonderful' bs!...

Well, gee. Go to France and see all the holes in the smiles of those happy, healthy, fluoride free peoples. We, as a group, have such better dental health overall, and largely due to fluoridated drinking water, most dentists would say.

I'm not personally convinced that fluoride in drinking water is a good idea. My dentist tells me that fluoride toothpastes and rinses work far better than adding it to drinking water because it soaks directly into the teeth but doesn't appear to travel to the teeth through the bloodstream. So he feels that if you want the benefits of fluoride (assuming you believe there are any) get it from toothpaste and rinses. I'm not sure how you can use fluoride products without swallowing some of it, so perhaps it's too scary to consider for some people.

I think what is most polluted by fluoride is the literature both supporting and opposing it. It's really hard to find any decent studies supporting fluoridation, but it's equally hard to find any good ones showing harm. The only studies I know of that really show harm are from areas that have naturally occurring fluoride at levels that far exceed recommended levels.

One would think that all the complaining by communities wishing to avoid fluoride in their drinking water would spur new studies but they're hard to find if they're out there.

Although perhaps overblown, as it claims fluoridation is, this paragraph sums up the US approach to so many things medical: "Like most things American, fluoride is overblown, over-prescribed, and over-used. Along with the expansion of fast food restaurants and American waistlines, fluoride's expansion into the food supply via the water supply is out of control and may be creating instead of curing tooth decay. It's time to stop water fluoridation. Fluoride can't fix a poor diet."

Clearly, the fluoride industry needs to demonstrate to the population that its products are safe and actually good for something. There are so many millions of us that grew up with fluoridated water and toothpaste it should be easy to find study subjects.

A quick look at France's terrible dental condition compared to ours suggests fluoride works. However, that's not much of a study.

-Jeff

[d-cat]

I really hate the 'flouride in the water is so wonderful' bs!...

yeah, and that mercury-is-good-for-you stuff rubs me the wrong way too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZArebYZzdc

[d-cat]

Well, gee. Go to France and see all the holes in the smiles of those happy, healthy, fluoride free peoples. We, as a group, have such better dental health overall, and largely due to fluoridated drinking water, most dentists would say.

I'm not personally convinced that fluoride in drinking water is a good idea. My dentist tells me that fluoride toothpastes and rinses work far better than adding it to drinking water because it soaks directly into the teeth but doesn't appear to travel to the teeth through the bloodstream. So he feels that if you want the benefits of fluoride (assuming you believe there are any) get it from toothpaste and rinses. I'm not sure how you can use fluoride products without swallowing some of it, so perhaps it's too scary to consider for some people.

I think what is most polluted by fluoride is the literature both supporting and opposing it. It's really hard to find any decent studies supporting fluoridation, but it's equally hard to find any good ones showing harm. The only studies I know of that really show harm are from areas that have naturally occurring fluoride at levels that far exceed recommended levels.

One would think that all the complaining by communities wishing to avoid fluoride in their drinking water would spur new studies but they're hard to find if they're out there.

Although perhaps overblown, as it claims fluoridation is, this paragraph sums up the US approach to so many things medical: "Like most things American, fluoride is overblown, over-prescribed, and over-used. Along with the expansion of fast food restaurants and American waistlines, fluoride's expansion into the food supply via the water supply is out of control and may be creating instead of curing tooth decay. It's time to stop water fluoridation. Fluoride can't fix a poor diet."

Clearly, the fluoride industry needs to demonstrate to the population that its products are safe and actually good for something. There are so many millions of us that grew up with fluoridated water and toothpaste it should be easy to find study subjects.

A quick look at France's terrible dental condition compared to ours suggests fluoride works. However, that's not much of a study.

-Jeff

you can find info online on how Canada was divided with one half being fluoridated, and the other half ended up with better teeth. Fluoride can actually cause tooth problems.

For those too lazy to look into it, sodium fluoride is a waste product of the aluminum industry. It was first used as a drug in the water supply of the nazi concentration camps to keep the prisoners docile. From what I understand, its the main active ingredient in rat poison and the dumbing down ingredient in prozac. You can get fluoride-free toothpaste pretty easily, and we still have alternatives to the water supply, though from the news stories Orchard Dweller posted, it seems they're working on that one.

[Braggi]

... you can find info online on how Canada was divided with one half being fluoridated, and the other half ended up with better teeth. Fluoride can actually cause tooth problems. ...

Can you post some links?

... For those too lazy to look into it, sodium fluoride is a waste product of the aluminum industry. It was first used as a drug in the water supply of the nazi concentration camps to keep the prisoners docile. From what I understand, its the main active ingredient in rat poison and the dumbing down ingredient in prozac. ...

Well, gee, you certainly have all the propaganda of the anti fluoride gang down pat. Thing is, half truths aren't always truths. The concentration camp story I have a hard time verifying since it only comes up on anti fluoride sites and the fluoride levels are never mentioned anyway. Fluorine compounds are used in a whole lot of things just as the deadly poison chlorine is used in a whole lot of things, including nice, natural sea salt. Painting with too broad of a brush is usually an error. Fluoride hasn't been used in rat poison for a long time as I understand it. Actually the reason is that it stays toxic in the environment too long. Hmmm. And Prozac doesn't have any "dumbing down" ingredients. Best leave Prozac out of the discussion since the compound therein is pretty different from the fluoride in drinking water.

I'm interested in links to real studies finding problems with fluoride levels currently found in fluoridated drinking water. I find a lot of unsupported statements out there, but few actual links to studies. The studies I've seen that find problems are studying areas where levels in groundwater are four to six times the optimum. I'm not surprised problems occur there.

-Jeff

[lynn]

Braggi..."Well, gee. Go to France and see all the holes in the smiles of those happy, healthy, fluoride free peoples. We, as a group, have such better dental health overall, and largely due to fluoridated drinking water, most dentists would say."...

Like I wrote earlier Braggi...Don't even get me started on the "flouride in the water" bs...

It's a lazy societies way of trying to help their kids teeth not decay....It's REALLY STUPID!!!....

And don't tell me to go to France so I can see all the rotten teeth there...just because they didn't drink flouridated water...

Our family NEVER drank a drop of flouridated water...and all us kids grew up with perfect - not one cavity teeth...And we didn't use flouride toothpaste either....

It's really not that hard...Some parent's are just too lazy and stupid to not feed their kids right, and make 'em brush their teeth...

If ya' want to use flouride toothpaste fine...

But leave it out of my god-damn water!!!!

[phooph]

I think what is most polluted by fluoride is the literature both supporting and opposing it. It's really hard to find any decent studies supporting fluoridation, but it's equally hard to find any good ones showing harm. The only studies I know of that really show harm are from areas that have naturally occurring fluoride at levels that far exceed recommended levels.

One would think that all the complaining by communities wishing to avoid fluoride in their drinking water would spur new studies but they're hard to find if they're out there.

-Jeff

https://www.sonic.net/kryptox/medicine/frac/hip.htm

[d-cat]

Can you post some links?

not without searching - I researched this years ago

Well, gee, you certainly have all the propaganda of the anti fluoride gang down pat. Thing is, half truths aren't always truths. The concentration camp story I have a hard time verifying since it only comes up on anti fluoride sites and the fluoride levels are never mentioned anyway. Fluorine compounds are used in a whole lot of things just as the deadly poison chlorine is used in a whole lot of things, including nice, natural sea salt. Painting with too broad of a brush is usually an error. Fluoride hasn't been used in rat poison for a long time as I understand it. Actually the reason is that it stays toxic in the environment too long. Hmmm. And Prozac doesn't have any "dumbing down" ingredients. Best leave Prozac out of the discussion since the compound therein is pretty different from the fluoride in drinking water.

Call it anti-fluoride propaganda if you want. I've researched it.

I'm interested in links to real studies finding problems with fluoride levels currently found in fluoridated drinking water. I find a lot of unsupported statements out there, but few actual links to studies. The studies I've seen that find problems are studying areas where levels in groundwater are four to six times the optimum. I'm not surprised problems occur there.

-Jeff

Well then enjoy your fluoride.

[Braggi]

not without searching - I researched this years ago

Call it anti-fluoride propaganda if you want. I've researched it.

Well then enjoy your fluoride.

You really don't have to get nasty. I've researched it too. A lot. For years. What I haven't found is much evidence one way or another if this stuff is good for us or not. Certainly overdosing is bad. I've not found anyone recommending that.

It's not much of an issue for me because I have spring water in my home and I use a non fluoride toothpaste. The reason I asked is because I'd really like to know.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

https://www.sonic.net/kryptox/medicine/frac/hip.htm

Ah yes. John Lee. Well, Pooph, I've heard Dr. Lee numerous times on the radio talking about fluoride and also about progesterone cream. He was wrong about the progesterone cream but he didn't care because he made a lot of money selling it, which is unethical for an MD. Progesterone cream has failed in double blind studies, but that didn't stop Dr. Lee.

Dr. Lee has a way of reading his own results into medical studies and tends to ignore controls. I'll not follow all the studies he quotes unless I can find some more credible sources first.

-Jeff

[phooph]

Ah yes. John Lee. Well, Pooph, I've heard Dr. Lee numerous times on the radio talking about fluoride and also about progesterone cream. He was wrong about the progesterone cream but he didn't care because he made a lot of money selling it, which is unethical for an MD. Progesterone cream has failed in double blind studies, but that didn't stop Dr. Lee.

Dr. Lee may have recommeded progesterone cream to his patients, but he had no financial interest in any of the manufacturers. He did sell a book about progesterone and other hormones which I have and which is a very good book on hormones. I have been using progesterone cream for years. At one time I thought it was probably a useless expense and stopped using it only to discover that it had been doing me a lot of good and being off of it was not so good, so now I continue to use it. BTW I never met him. I read his book after my sister in OK sent it to me in NM many years ago.

Dr. Lee has a way of reading his own results into medical studies and tends to ignore controls. I'll not follow all the studies he quotes unless I can find some more credible sources first.

-Jeff

Yes, once again you refuse to use the evidence that is presented to you, using the usual shoot the messenger tactic.

[Braggi]

Dr. Lee may have recommeded progesterone cream to his patients, but he had no financial interest in any of the manufacturers. He did sell a book about progesterone and other hormones which I have and which is a very good book on hormones. I have been using progesterone cream for years. ...

He certainly advertised companies that sold the product on his radio show. I don't doubt your experience with it. It hasn't done well in double blind studies.

... Yes, once again you refuse to use the evidence that is presented to you, using the usual shoot the messenger tactic.

Phooph, I listened to his radio show numerous times and I've heard his message. What he doesn't consider in the studies he cites is that places where drinking water is fluoridated are also places where people in general, and women in particular, tend not to do much physical labor. It is weight bearing exercise that strengthens bones and nothing else. Not calcium, not vitamins, not milk, not anything. The only proven way to maintain bone health is through weight bearing exercise. John Lee didn't account for that in his reading of the studies. People who live in cities tend to have sedentary lifestyles and live longer lives, both of which are risk factors for osteoporosis.

Overweight people who drink fluoridated water don't have osteoporosis. They do weight bearing exercise every time they walk.

"Considering the source" is not the same as shooting the messenger and I believe John Lee believed what he was preaching and was sincere. I'd just like to hear corroboration. He was certainly correct about standard "hormone replacement therapy" being a bad idea. Of course, so was Dr. Dean Edell. Corroboration from credible sources. That's what I'd like to see.

-Jeff

[OrchardDweller]

Can you post some links?
Well, gee, you certainly have all the propaganda of the anti fluoride gang down pat.
-Jeff

What is the ulterior motive of this "anti fluoride gang", if fluoride indeed is good for you?

[phooph]

He certainly advertised companies that sold the product on his radio show. I don't doubt your experience with it. It hasn't done well in double blind studies.

My sister who is very wary of recommendations tainted by financial interest did a pretty thorough investigation of Dr. Lee and his relationship to manufacturers.

Phooph, I listened to his radio show numerous times and I've heard his message. What he doesn't consider in the studies he cites is that places where drinking water is fluoridated are also places where people in general, and women in particular, tend not to do much physical labor. It is weight bearing exercise that strengthens bones and nothing else. Not calcium, not vitamins, not milk, not anything. The only proven way to maintain bone health is through weight bearing exercise. John Lee didn't account for that in his reading of the studies. People who live in cities tend to have sedentary lifestyles and live longer lives, both of which are risk factors for osteoporosis.

Overweight people who drink fluoridated water don't have osteoporosis. They do weight bearing exercise every time they walk.

"Considering the source" is not the same as shooting the messenger and I believe John Lee believed what he was preaching and was sincere. I'd just like to hear corroboration. He was certainly correct about standard "hormone replacement therapy" being a bad idea. Of course, so was Dr. Dean Edell. Corroboration from credible sources. That's what I'd like to see.

-Jeff

I provided the link to Dr. Lee's article because it had several references in one place. There are other sources online but that would require a bunch of links.

I believe what you say about other factors such as lifestyle having an effect, however there are also incidences of naturally occurring fluoride having negative consequences, for instance sheep in New Zealand who's teeth were softened to the point of crumbling due to fluorosis. The danger is in getting too much, and what happens to children in hot dry climates who drink a lot of water? Anyone who is familiar with what happens to water purification systems that deliver periodic high doses of chlorine or chloramine into the water know that a constant rate of delivery is rare.

Here is an article excerpted from Chemical and Engineering news. https://www.fluoridealert.org/s-fluorosis.htm It mentions that there are other health effects besides the obvious skeletal fluorosis that occurs in those exposed to a constant does of fluoride. It also identifies the cumulitive nature of fluroide. Prior to it's being added to water supplies, fluroide compounds produced as waste in manufacturing were listed as a toxic, cumulitive poison which could not be dumped in lakes, streams and estuaries due to the cumulitive nature of the substance. It was disposed of as toxic waste at cost. It is now sold as an additive to water and dental products. Does one not see the financial incentive?

[Braggi]

My sister who is very wary of recommendations tainted by financial interest did a pretty thorough investigation of Dr. Lee and his relationship to manufacturers. ...

I do think Dr. Lee was trying to do a service proposing the things he did. He's probably a good guy. I really don't mean to taint his reputation.

... fluroide compounds produced as waste in manufacturing were listed as a toxic, cumulitive poison which could not be dumped in lakes, streams and estuaries due to the cumulitive nature of the substance. It was disposed of as toxic waste at cost. It is now sold as an additive to water and dental products. Does one not see the financial incentive?

Oh yes, most certainly, and I don't trust the aluminum manufacturers any more than I do the chemical fertilizer companies who sell the stuff to the water agencies. It does have the appearance of a very crooked racket. I'm frankly appalled the pro fluoride industry doesn't have more studies proving the benefits of fluoridation. I've tried to find them. They are few and mostly old. Where is the modern research? This is billions of dollars we're spending and the fact is, most of that fluoridated water just goes down the toilet or onto lawns anyway. What percentage of it is consumed by humans?

OrchardDweller, just because I call something propaganda doesn't mean I'm calling it false. Propaganda is literature that supports your argument. However, when it becomes religion-like there is cause for scrutiny. The anti fluoride crowd has a few mantras they claim over and over and I think they have very little to support their claims. All the data they show that I have seen focuses on overdose levels. Agreed. Overdoses of just about anything, including water, is dangerous. Supposedly the "right" amount of fluoride is necessary for healthy tooth and bone development. Why Nature, in Her infinite wisdom, doesn't supply us with enough in our diets and in our ordinary non fluoridated water is up to the pro-fluoridation lobby to prove. I don't think they've done a good job of proving it.

I'll do more reading on the topic, and thanks for the additional links, Phooph.

At this point if I was in a town debating the merits of fluoridating city water, I'm still not sure which side I would come down on, but I'm leaning more and more away from fluoridation just based on the logic. It's certainly a pollutant and the benefits need to be more solidly proven. It seems like the benefits should be very clear and to me they're not.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Here is an article excerpted from Chemical and Engineering news. https://www.fluoridealert.org/s-fluorosis.htm ...

This article is 20 years old and only finds problems with overdose, and those problems are few and inconclusive.

Here's a link to a pretty well supported statement from a credible organization with no obvious reason to lean one way or another.

https://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xch...5_ENU_HTML.htm

-Jeff

[phooph]

Jeff,

That seems to be a fairly thorough article. I might take issue with your assertion that it comes from an organization with no obvious reason to lean one way or the other, however.

My mother had an MS degree in nutrition and as a child who loved books, I found my mother's old college text books at one point. At the time I thought it interesting that they were published by the Betty Crocker Foundation. In fact I thought it was kind of cool. As an adult who has learned a lot more about vested interests, what I eventually realized was the food industry, and the marketers of junk food, have insinuated themselves into the education of the people who would be giving advice on nutrition. Same as what happens in medical education with drug companies.

My mother did the best she could with the information she was given, but I learned as an adult who'd struggled with health problems since childhood, that the diet she brought me up on was not good for me. I was able to improve my health by changing my diet to what the "health nuts" were promoting and not what the registered dieticians said was good.

My mother worked in a hospital, and hospital food is not the best way to eat. A friend of mine recently came down with some kind of blood cancer which eventually caused her kidneys to fail. She had to go on a special diet and a sheet of recommended foods was given to her. I have to say I was appalled at what was on that sheet of recommended foods. Crisco was one of them, a trans-fat so bad for your heath the state has considered banning it.

The Betty Crocker Foundation and other industry backed organizations have had an active role in nutrition education at all levels. When my children were in elementary school they took a home economics course. I had some conversations with the teacher who complained that most of the teaching materials were provided to the schools by the food manufacturers and promoted the consumption of highly processed, low nutrtition, low fiber foods loaded with salt, sugar, and trans-fats.

This article is 20 years old and only finds problems with overdose, and those problems are few and inconclusive.

Here's a link to a pretty well supported statement from a credible organization with no obvious reason to lean one way or another.

https://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xch...5_ENU_HTML.htm

-Jeff

[Barry]

I split of the fluoride posts into its own thread: Flouride in Drinking Water

[Braggi]

Jeff,

That seems to be a fairly thorough article. I might take issue with your assertion that it comes from an organization with no obvious reason to lean one way or the other, however. ...

As I said, no "obvious" reason ...

They do have a lot of support for their assertions and my dentist pretty much agrees although he's into topical use not putting it in water.

For all I know their website is funded by Alcoa. I don't know.

It's always buyer beware. However, I tend to side with science and real live studies over religious fervor and the big lie often and loudly repeated. On this issue the pro side appears to side with science and the con side with religious fervor. However, industry money often taints political issues, and this is certainly one with industrial money all over it.

Nothing is easy.

-Jeff

[d-cat]

The generic name for the brand name Prozac is:

fluoxetine

other drugs containing fluoride are:
Rohypnol (flunitrazepam), Diflucan (fluconazole), Stelazine (Fluanxol).

Can't fix depressed people if they have bad teeth, now can we?

[MsTerry]

Besides the first 3 letters being similar, can you show us the chemical connection?
Unless you think that oxymoron and oxygen are related?

The generic name for the brand name Prozac is:

fluoxetine

other drugs containing fluoride are:
Rohypnol (flunitrazepam), Diflucan (fluconazole), Stelazine (Fluanxol).

Can't fix depressed people if they have bad teeth, now can we?

[Sylph]

Besides the first 3 letters being similar, can you show us the chemical connection?
Unless you think that oxymoron and oxygen are related?

There are a few atoms of flouride attached to SSRIs to help with absorption, but the fear-mongering claims by the anti-flouride people are out in left field.

Here is a paper about the anti-flouride literature:
https://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2222595

The addition of the chemical fluorine to the water supply, called water fluoridation, reduces dental caries by making teeth more resistant to demineralisation and more likely to remineralise when initially decayed. This process has been implemented in more than 30 countries around the world, is cost-effective and has been shown to be efficacious in preventing decay across a person's lifespan. However, attempts to expand this major public health achievement in line with Australia's National Oral Health Plan 2004–2013 are almost universally met with considerable resistance from opponents of water fluoridation, who engage in coordinated campaigns to portray water fluoridation as ineffective and highly dangerous.

Water fluoridation opponents employ multiple techniques to try and undermine the scientifically established effectiveness of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation. These materials are used to sway public and political opinion to the detriment of public health. Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness. Positive findings are downplayed or trivialised and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions. Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation. Techniques such as "the big lie" and innuendo are used to associate water fluoridation with health and environmental disasters, without factual support. Half-truths are presented, fallacious statements reiterated, and attempts are made to bamboozle the public with a large list of claims and quotes often with little scientific basis. Ultimately, attempts are made to discredit and slander scientists and various health organisations that support water fluoridation.

Summary: Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that has been found to be safe and effective. Nonetheless, the implementation of water fluoridation is still regularly interrupted by a relatively small group of individuals who use misinformation and rhetoric to induce doubts in the minds of the public and government officials. It is important that public health officials are aware of these tactics so that they can better counter their negative effect.

[Sylph]

I'm curious, do the anti-flouride people stay away from green tea?

Tea plants accumulate fluoride in their leaves. In general, the oldest tea leaves contain the most fluoride (9). Most high quality teas are made from the bud or the first two to four leaves—the youngest leaves on the plant. Brick tea, a lower quality tea, is made from the oldest tea leaves and is often very high in fluoride. Symptoms of fluoride excess (i.e., dental and skeletal fluorosis) have been observed in Tibetan children and adults who consume large amounts of brick tea (10, 11). Unlike brick tea, fluoride levels in green, oolong, and black teas are generally comparable to those recommended for the prevention of dental caries (cavities). Thus, daily consumption of up to one liter of green, oolong, or black tea would be unlikely to result in fluoride intakes higher than those recommended for dental health (12, 13). The fluoride content of white tea is likely to be less than other teas, since white teas are made from the buds and youngest leaves of the tea plant. The fluoride contents of 17 brands of green, oolong, and black teas is presented in the table below (12). These values do not include the fluoride content of the water used to make the tea.

https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/tea/

[dancingstar]

People wanting to avoid fluoride in drinking water should know that Alhambra is currently advertising their water, "Now With Added Fluoride". The school I work at provides Alhambra water in those 5-gallon bottle dispensers. Probably many workplaces/offices do the same.

[phooph]

I'm curious, do the anti-flouride people stay away from green tea?
teahttps://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/tea/

I guess you missed the part about brick tea being the problem. We don't drink brick tea in the US except among immigrants from brick tea drinking areas. I once bought some from an Asian market years ago but didn't like the taste.

According to the biological characteristics of the tea tree, fluorine can be selectively absorbed from soil by trees and accumulated in the leaves. When the growth period of tea trees is longer, the fluorine concentration in leaves is higher (1,2). Brick tea is considered to be one of life's necessities by Tibetans and other minority nationalities in western China. The fluorine concentration of brick tea is 200-300 times higher than ordinary green tea and black tea (3,4) because brick tea is made from old stems and leaves of the tea tree, but ordinary green tea and black tea are made from tender leaves and buds. It has been shown that the fluorine concentration of brick tea has no relationship with its method of preparation (5).

https://www.ehponline.org/docs/1996/104-12/cao.html

[Sylph]

No, I didn't miss that point. Brick tea has huge amounts of fluoride but black tea has therapeutic amounts of fluoride, the amount that would be in fluoridated water, and green tea has even more. Instant tea is especially high in fluoride and, surprisingly, decaffeinated tea, is higher than non-decaffeinated tea in flouride.

Something from Dr. Weil that makes sense:
https://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA22857

Both green and black tea contain fluoride, although green tea contains twice the amount found in black. However, I wouldn't worry about the fluoride you get from either type of tea because even with green tea, the amount that people drink is unlikely to supply enough fluoride to reach toxic levels. About 50 percent of fluoride (from any source) is deposited in the bone and teeth; the other half is excreted.
In general, I think concerns about fluoride are overblown. I've heard arguments against fluoride ranging from that it may cause bone cancer to the notion that putting fluoride in the water supply is a government plot to destroy our brains. High amounts of fluoride over several years can cause brittle bones, but this is extremely rare. Fluoride is toxic in very large quantities and can cause gastrointestinal symptoms and sometimes even death. But you'd have to ingest about 20,000 times more fluoride than what's in an 8-ounce glass of fluoridated water to see such an effect.

I'm gonna keep enjoying my green tea!

[phooph]

No, I didn't miss that point. Brick tea has huge amounts of fluoride but black tea has therapeutic amounts of fluoride, the amount that would be in fluoridated water, and green tea has even more. Instant tea is especially high in fluoride and, surprisingly, decaffeinated tea, is higher than non-decaffeinated tea in flouride.

Something from Dr. Weil that makes sense:
https://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA22857

I'm gonna keep enjoying my green tea!

I think the point is that we get fluoride in a lot of places. Why put it in the water too?

Answer- It used to be disposed of as toxic waste at cost. Now it is sold as a product.

I had my green tea today.

[Sylph]

I think the point is that we get fluoride in a lot of places. Why put it in the water too?

Answer- It used to be disposed of as toxic waste at cost. Now it is sold as a product.

I had my green tea today.

I think it's important to keep the fluoride issue in perspective. Especially in young children, the level needed to make strong teeth but avoid fluorosis is quite critical. Yes, there are many sources of fluoride, including toothpaste, processed foods.... and tea. I have learned quite a bit from this thread and it's been interesting!
Marin County and Healdsburg apparently fluoridate their water, but not most of Sonoma County. I wonder what the history is vis a vis activism on the issue?
Historically, water fluoridation has been a cost-effective public health measure that helps poor kids proportionally more than advantaged ones. Seems to me we still have plenty of disadvantaged kids in Sonoma County and elsewhere who could benefit from better teeth.

Here's more on tea. Seems like it would be a good anti-cavity mouthwash!

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0300571200000543
This study has demonstrated that tea can provide an effective vehicle for fluoride delivery to the oral cavity where it may interact with the oral tissues and their surface integuments. This may lead to local topical effects of the ingested fluoride as well as systemic effects following oral and gastro-intestinal absorption.