I've seen plenty of questions on here asking about switching to fluoride free toothpaste or getting a fluoride filter, but my question is WHY? I don't fervently seek the addition of fluoride in my life, but I have nothing against it either. All I'm looking for is well-organized arguments for either side.
asked bycavebitch (1193)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on July 26, 2013
at 12:05 PM
I'm not down with putting fluoride in drinking water. Because it's really not very effective. It isn't really all that harmful, either, though. Many of these memes are just alarmist and inaccurate.
There's a middle ground between the SAD "your teeth with be soft and rotting without it!" and the other extreme of "3% of a tube of toothpaste is enough to poison a child!" crap.
My view: use it therapeutically and topically, but don't go all out of your way and freak out avoiding it either. If you have dental problems, it can be a great tool and should be used appropriately.
on July 26, 2013
at 12:31 PM
The WHY is because it seems that it can displace iodine from the body and thus be the cause to many cases of hypothyroidism. Some find this to be an absolute no-brainer and are into avoiding all the fluoride and chlorides, supplementing with lugol's iodine for detoxifying purposes, etc.
There's a lot of testimonial showing that this has helped many people with their hypo's but there's another trend that finds that iodine is better avoided because can actually make thyroid conditions worse (specially people with auto-immune Hashimotos).
But then the others says that is not the iodine per se... and so long, it's a pretty controversial debate.
Some more info: http://www.naturalthyroidchoices.com/Fluoride.html
Make a search for fluoride+lugols+thyroid on Google and you will find out a lot of info.
on July 30, 2013
at 01:28 PM
I think the book Kiss your dentist Goodbye has the best argument for and against it. (It won the acceptance of a former surgeon general of the US, and she also cites Mercola so she seems rare for having the alternative and mainstream views supporting her system).
She is a dentist who has seen definite improvements in her patients' teeth by rinsing with a very, very dilute fluoride solution-not the more is better, which is what you can get with many toothpastes today and what companies would wish you to believe in.
But then Dr. Ellie Phillips, the author of the book, says that she filters all of her water to remove fluoride, and cites studies concerning the complexation of fluoride with aluminum from cooking pans as well as the fact that fluoride is not present at all in breast milk, which is a very good model for what humans actually need (like as explained in the perfect health diet).
She also says that contrary to what you might read, say, here: http://whole9life.com/2013/05/dental-decisions-part-3/
that fluoride ingested in children does not actually benefit their teeth. There is no benefit from systemic exposure, ONLY topical.
Is fluoride present in the breast milk of other animals? That should be a key indicator.
This is actually a really great resource on fluoride, but its effects on animals, not humans:
What I hate about the pro-fluoride and anti-fluoride camps is that there is no room for debate in the US. (Matt is a perfect example of this).
Why can't the ADA state that there is no systemic benefit, only topical? And that if your mouth doesn't have the proper pH that people will still have cavities?
Dr. Krieger's words, and not mine, are that there are better ways to care for teeth, and when your mouth is acidic, or you have issues producing saliva, or you have a constantly dry mouth due to allergies/breathing through your nose, you're going to be faced with teeth problems, no matter how much fluoride you consume.
If the Public health departments are going to operate like doctors, then their motto too should be, "First, do no harm."
And there are quite clearly better ways to treat teeth (Closys, the ORIGINAL listerine - not any other brands, as it has cloves, and other compounds proven to decrease bacteria in the teeth, which by the way, is what causes tooth problems, and addressing mouth acidity through the use of xylitol products, dilute fluoride rinses on the order of 0.5% before going to bed, intermittent fasting, or only eating for 10 hours of the day) which cause less harm.
The United States tooth care community, like its health care, is attacking the problem the wrong way.
I know people here laugh, but the fact is that there is no substance which is 100% safe and I have seen reactions/allergies to fluoride even though it was touted as a universal panacea.
We receive a lot of exposure from fluoride due to its use in non-organic fruits and vegetables, teas, and coffees, potatoes, tomatoes, grapes, wine and animals feeds. Almost any crop which is a huge and popular cash crop is sprayed with it because it so effective as an anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, and preservative. That was never the case when fluoride was approved for water use many years ago. Actually, they used methyl bromide previously. Anyone care to defend the use of methyl bromide? Would you like to say that the bromine in methyl bromide is different than the hydrogen bromide used in sleeping pills Matt?
By putting fluoride in water and saying because of this addition, tooth decay will necessarily decrease and people are more greatly protected from cavities/rot is not the whole truth and gives people a false sense of hope or ideas about how to fix or deal with their mouth issues.
On that issue alone - i.e. that fluoride gives people a hugely false sense of security - fluoride supplements are idiotic, and should be removed from their water, so we can start having a real debate about how to fix dental care.
Instead the public is so polarized over the wrong things- government conspiracy issue, John Bircher society, people calling anti-fluoridationists anti-science, etc., that the real debate which needs to occur over our nation's best courses for the health of teeth will never occur.
You may mock and laugh about the issue (oh no the crazy fluoridation/anti-fluoridation debates -what is up with these people? etc. tin hat foil toting etc.) but these are serious things that matter and affect people's lives and well-beings.
Matt: Will you please clarify your comment?
As far as I know, compounds of fluorine are called fluorides. Last statement, first paragraph of here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine
I'm not aware of the Ka (dissocation constant) of Cryolite, also known as sodium hexafluoroaluminate, compared to calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride, or hydrofluorosilic acid, which is what is added in US water. Is that what you are trying to address Matt? If so, perhaps you have a point, but I think the fluoride in cryolite is still fairly bioavailable and capable of irritating gastric mucosa at high concentrations.
I have a degree related to chemistry as well, so you're not the only one who works in a lab and knows science. So yes, I know that they (i.e. Hydrofluorosilic acid and organo-fluorines) are not the same compounds, the point is that the element Fluorine is present, because it is a very effective insecticide, herbicide, and fungicide and therefore it is being used far more widely than the original intent with having it only in water and to quantify our exposure to it and be able to validate any of the claims of the crazy anti-fluoridationists is damn near impossible, as evidenced by trying to get a good study which effectively validates every single one of paleo, perfect health diet, or primal health's claims.
The point is, all of these substances I mentioned above have the element Fluorine, which is extremely electronegative, and depending on the composition of each special snowflake person, people will all react differently to the same substance.
I'm sorry that the studies which are available are not of sufficient quality for you.
I would feel the same way about the health of meat/non-health of meat (TMAO studies anyone?) and eggs, for example, if I were someone who wasn't willing to look into the matter myself.
I accept the chlorination of water on the grounds that access to clean water has greatly decreased diseases such as cholera. I'm not against things that work, but why I am anti-science or bad science for saying that a compound containing fluorine has fluoride? Furthermore, I believe in calling for a better system of dealing with people's teeth and calling out that there is no universally accepted benign substance? Again, is there anything unreasonable about these statements, or bad-science, or anti-science? I think we're actually on the same team, but you think you're better and I don't. I'm willing to learn. Engage me.
Can you frame the argument in a different way instead of always trying to be right or the bad-science bullshitter meter, and accept that the way that we have tried to fix people's teeth is not working?
Also, I never said that people can't drink tea, eat potatoes, wine, eat grapes that have been sprayed with this stuff, etc. But you better be damn sure to rinse the crap off that produce and it takes a good brush and a lot of scrubbing.
So here you are, on paleohacks, thinking that because you can afford to get the good stuff, not the conventionally grown stuff, it's not your concern? The fact is, the health of everyone is our concern and if you have the knowledge to nitpick, why aren't you helping to improve the system?
You really like to belittle people, but I would appreciate it if you didn't pick some arcane part of my argument to discredit me and instead really engage me. Just because the bond is a carbon-fluorine instead, it's still a compound of fluorine which is known as a fluoride.
I mean, did you even see that I did acknowledge that fluoride, at very low concentrations, can have a beneficial effect on remineralization of teeth WITH the proper mouth acidity (which, by the way, is the key to having good mouth health)?
I know you're trying to convince people to look at the science, and you're secure in your belief that the harm outweighs the benefit, but I do not know how you can be so sure.
Perhaps I'm simply an idiot, but the more I learn the more I find I don't know.... I'm not always sure that I'm 100% right and I freely accept that I could be wrong.
Some other things: In the link to animal nutrition and fluoride that I attached, the book clearly states that in most literature, the terms "fluorine" and "fluoride: are often used interchangeably in referring to fluoride compounds or to the element fluorine (F). I'm sorry that this is so imprecise and bothers you, but from what I've read fluorine in PubMed literature also refers to a "fluorine-containing organic compound" or fluorine in the gaseous state.
Perhaps I should clarify and say that the term "fluoride" is what I use when referring to any compound containing fluorine.
Do you disagree with that statement? Is it wrong and horribly incorrect? If so, I apologize.
I say fluoride because it's rare that fluorine, which is the most electronegative element, is found as what I would consider to be truly fluorine - i.e. F2, a gas. It's very, very rare. That's my basis for always saying fluoride versus fluorine. Perhaps I should change all the references from fluoride to "compounds with fluorine" so I could gain credibility? I agree a lot of the anti-fluoridation rhetoric sounds ridiculous and that these people do not make the best arguments, but I am citing a dentist with many years of experience, with backing from a surgeon general, and she is also a dentist who routinely questions the ADA, or American Dental Association.
I'd like to think I'm not just some crazy troll, but I guess in the end, if Matt says it, he's right.
These issues are neither here nor there but can you honestly, on a different topic, tell me that you would use, in your lab, your farm, or your produce, Cryolite in large quantities, without getting out your PPE (personal protective equipment) and the MSDS and then tell me that that's something you don't mind ingesting or that there is no problem with people ingesting substances which contain ~ 200 ppm of it, such as chicken parts, chicken bones, potato skins, and grapes.
I apologize if I sound hysterical, I just really don't like the way you can come across as quite sarcastic and belittling. Perhaps I'm only an idiot, but I am willing to admit if I have made a mistake, and if you see one, please fix it.
But please don't let the debate on fluorides come down to the fact that you immediately dismiss someone of terminology "compounds of fluorine" versus fluorides, or the fact that organofluorine compounds are different than what we add in water. The fact is, we are still ingesting it, despite only now fully understanding the mechanism by which mouth health occurs.
on July 26, 2013
at 01:35 PM
So this doesn't directly answer the question, but it is somewhat relevant so I'll just throw it out there.
There is apparently no real need for toothpaste (either with or without flouride) - at least with regard to plaque removal. Several studies suggest that it is the act of brushing, not the presence of toothpaste that is beneficial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20657090 "CONCLUSION: Dentifrice use does not enhance plaque removal when used in conjunction with a toothbrush, and instead, may marginally lessen the brushing effect. The role of a toothbrush appears to be more crucial in the maintenance of oral hygiene."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22814692 "It may be concluded that the use of a conventional dentifrice during toothbrushing does not seem to enhance plaque removal capacity."
A better question for folks on this site may be, if you are eating a diet low in sugar and processed foods (i.e. one that is not cavity/gingivitis promoting) does the addition of fluoride provide any benefit over simply brushing with baking soda for example? If the answer is no benefit, then even a small risk weighs against its inclusion.
However, the issue then becomes how difficult is it to reduce your exposure and would your efforts be better spent addressing other potential issues/problems. Buying fluoride free toothpaste is not too hard. Trying to get your town to stop putting fluoride in the water supply is a lot more difficult.
on July 26, 2013
at 11:52 AM
Unpossible to find rational arguments for and against fluoride on the internet. The tin-foil wearing, chem-trails are killing us all crowd has made it impossible to take anti-fluoride stance seriously.
on July 27, 2013
at 09:31 PM
It calcifies your pineal gland. Enough said.
on July 26, 2013
at 05:10 PM
If it is helpful, there is an appropriate dose. Most folks are getting an unregulated dose. Whatever is in the water plus what's in the toothpaste plus what you get in the dentist's office.
I've found a little bit of iodine and drinking spring water/reverse osmosis water helpful. I'll still drink tap water when nothing else is available, but I can tell the difference. I don't, in fact, actually know if it is the fluoride, but I tend to be thirstier when I drink tap water. I was feeling quite dehydrated until I figured this out.
on July 27, 2013
at 09:40 PM
What does CarbSane think? [Edit: link removed - post reported]
on July 27, 2013
at 08:56 PM
This question was just asked in the Circadian biohackers FB site:Does anyone know what the minimum effective dose on Fluoride is? I know we probably don't want to be drinking fluoridated water all day, every day. But I was thinking that there would be a desired point on the dose response curve, especially for kids, where tooth integrity would be augmented and negative outcomes would be avoided or at least minimized.
The thread is filled with gold.
The answers: The premise of the question is flawed.......teeth do not need Fluoride. That has been a neolithic belief based upon man's law not natures law. Weston A Price was excommunicated from dentistry because of this very fact by the ADA.......who pushed the Fluoride agenda.
There is no minimum requirement for fluoride since there is no biological need for it, its toxicity begins to show at as little as 1 ppb.
Fluoride is a dielectric blocker......it means it destroy's Jospehine effects of semiconduction........as a former Stanford guy you should know what that means........it means you get avalanche collapse and you lose energy by the square root of slope. In semiconduction when an insulator is between two semiconductive sheets of material it begins to form supercurrents. The effect was demostrated in 1963 by Brian D Josephson. Today Silicon valley billions are made on these natural laws of semiconduction. They care able to detect and amplify weak electric and magnetic fields, switch signals from one circuit to the next one based upon the environment they are in. They do it close to the speed of light and are able to store information as they do it while they use very low power. The dissapate energy well and do it at quantum spaces and time. Fluoride blocks these effects............biology does not use it. Man does.
children are the most susceptible to the effects of fluoride, it has detrimental effects on behavior, cognition, lowers IQ, increases the risk for bone cancer as well as other cancers, Harvard study as well as several studies in China on this.
Fluoride, even if you're brushing/rinsing with it still gets absorbed by the mucous membranes in the mouth and when it accumulates in the body, it is nearly impossible to remove, it calcifies soft tissue, particularly the pineal gland, weakens bones by disrupting normal bone metabolism, fluoride does occur naturally, trace amounts can be found in natural salt like Himalayan pink salt but it is not the same fluoride used in industry which is a more toxic and highly reactive form