Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
8. I get it, you don't argue from epidemiological grounds, you argue based upon
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:01 PM
Dec 2011

what type of paper and research you have summarized before you.

I take it you are not a dentist, and have never studied this topic in dental school.

You will probably want to assert that publications from the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry are only meant as brochures in favor of the chemical industry.

I see you failed to mention any of your own research into this topic.

We have over a dozen nations who have done research into the topic of fluoride in water, (something that occurs naturally in some drinking water, by the way), and all have concluded that fluoridated water in well-managed public drinking water supplies is advantageous to dental health. Not one nation disagrees with the scientific studies.

If you are a resident of Boston, as your name claims, I suspect you have benefited from that in the MDC water supplied to your home.

I honestly cannot believe any reasonable scientist in the field of chemistry argues that sources such as the AAPD and the CDC are to be distrusted. But then again, a healthy skeptic can argue that the color of the paper upon which the studies are summarized is improper, as you have done here.


Directly from my source op. cit.:


"Most cases of fluorosis are mild and will appear as tiny white specks or streaks that are often unnoticeable. However, in severe cases of enamel fluorosis, the appearance of the teeth is marred by discoloration or brown markings. The enamel may be pitted, rough, and hard to clean.

Q: How does a child get enamel fluorosis?

A: By swallowing too much fluoride for the child's size and weight during the years of tooth development. This can happen in several different ways. First, a child may take more of a fluoride supplement than the amount prescribed. Second, the child may take a fluoride supplement when there is already an optimal amount of fluoride in the drinking water. Third, some children simply like the taste of fluoridated toothpaste. They may use too much toothpaste, then swallow it instead of spitting it out.

Q: How can enamel fluorosis be prevented?

A: Talk to your pediatric dentist as the first step. He or she can tell you how much fluoride is in your drinking water. (Your local water treatment plant is another source of this information.) If you drink well water or bottled water, your pediatric dentist can assist you in getting an analysis of its fluoride content. After you know how much fluoride your child receives, you and your pediatric dentist can decide together whether your child needs a fluoride supplement.

Watch your child's use of fluoridated toothpaste as the second step. A pea-sized amount on the brush is plenty for fluoride protection. Teach your child to spit out the toothpaste, not swallow it, after brushing."

There is no credible study that says fluoridated water causes these RARE and usually MILD conditions.

Oh My Lack of God uriel1972 Dec 2011 #1
There are some here on DU! Odin2005 Dec 2011 #2
What is wrong with plain old water? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #3
So you aren't aware TZ Dec 2011 #4
Yes, I am quite aware of those studies. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #5
Please don't bother to get all the facts about Dental Fluorosis, nor bother to listen to the .. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #6
Information, in brochure format, is a way of spoonfeeding people. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #7
I get it, you don't argue from epidemiological grounds, you argue based upon MarkCharles Dec 2011 #8
Are you really simply cutting and pasting a webpage onto your post? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #9
epidemic of fluorosis? TZ Dec 2011 #19
Read my previous posts. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #22
I do know a bit about dilutions TZ Dec 2011 #17
I was expecting this sort of fallacy, sooner or later. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #23
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #10
You don't seem skeptical enough. nt. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #11
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #12
Government calls for the reduction of fluoride levels by nearly 50% Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #13
Yes, they did. Do you understand their rationale? laconicsax Dec 2011 #14
Oh, I thought it had to do with the toxicity of the ion itself. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #15
Depends on the Mercury. laconicsax Dec 2011 #16
What is it with the english language that makes it so difficult for some to understand it? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #21
You brought up Mercury. If you don't like the results, you have only yourself to blame. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #24
Your posts in these threads have a distinctive lack of content in them. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #25
Ooh! Another term you don't seem to know the meaning of. laconicsax Dec 2011 #26
There goes your bad English comprehension - again. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #27
And how many conferences on water fluoridation are there? laconicsax Dec 2011 #29
23% with Fluorosis? More like nearly 40%. Did you even read the CDC study? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #30
So why do YOU think you're arguing against the consensus? laconicsax Dec 2011 #31
What is the European consensus on Fluoridation? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #32
And what makes the US different. laconicsax Dec 2011 #33
I am not here to educate you or entertain your conspiracy theories. n.t. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #34
Then why are you here? laconicsax Dec 2011 #35
You actually appear to be ignoring any and all data. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #36
I see you can't take what you dish out. laconicsax Dec 2011 #37
It's all good, so long as you stop believing this "Fluoridation is Good" nonsense. n.t. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #38
You've yet to show that it IS nonsense. laconicsax Dec 2011 #39
Hmm. HuckleB Dec 2011 #40
Be nice. Our water isn't fluoridated--our PBFs are safe. laconicsax Dec 2011 #42
Yup. HuckleB Dec 2011 #43
You've made some statements in this post. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #51
A chemist not understanding doses? TZ Dec 2011 #18
Fluorine is not the same as Mercury. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #20
A couple of hints for you: Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #28
Pssssssst. HuckleB Dec 2011 #41
You have to love the 2nd comment there! n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #44
It is a beauty! -eom- HuckleB Dec 2011 #45
Let me repost that foul-mouthed "thing of beauty": Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #46
Wooosh! laconicsax Dec 2011 #47
And, again with your posts that lack any content. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #49
Of course I am. What else would I be doing in a skeptics group? laconicsax Dec 2011 #50
Yes, what are you doing in a skeptics group? Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #52
Pro-Fluoridation crankery is also an issue. Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #48
Locking EvolveOrConvolve Dec 2011 #53
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Youtube scientist C0nc0rd...»Reply #8