There would have been many generational differences between your diet and dental hygiene and those of your parents when they were growing up.Because my parents shared the same diet and dental hygiene practices. The only difference was they didn't get fluoride when they were young.?
But they were, and they are. My own family is proof. Apart from my children, I had many contempories when I was growing up who had excellent teeth - no fluoride!Because good diet and dental hygiene alone were not enough to prevent tooth decay in previous generations that grew up without fluoride.?
Because my parents shared the same diet and dental hygiene practices. The only difference was they didn't get fluoride when they were young.
Because good diet and dental hygiene alone were not enough to prevent tooth decay in previous generations that grew up without fluoride.
Whiskers, when the right conclusion stares you in the face, why go looking for ways to try and prove it wrong?
Yes, there were a lot more sugary foods and drinks around for my generation!There would have been many generational differences between your diet and dental hygiene and those of your parents when they were growing up.
Your family had no fluoride? I bet they have been brushing their teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride. Something not available to earlier generations.But they were, and they are. My own family is proof. Apart from my children, I had many contempories when I was growing up who had excellent teeth - no fluoride!
Your family had no fluoride? I bet they have been brushing their teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride. Something not available to earlier generations..
If fluoride was the only difference, then the obvious conclusion is that they either had some mitigating circumstance like disease, diet or hygene.
That is an extremely extraudinary staatement! So, from that logic nobody would have had a full head of teeth for very long before Flouride tablets, fluoride tooth paste and fluoridation was introduced. That's absolute nonsense!
Even today, I could take you to parts of the world that have never even heard of fluoride, don't have it occuring naturally, but have very good teeth. The main thing they also don't have is a high sugar western diet.
Essentially, if you jump to what seems to be any aparently 'right' conclusion just because it seems to stare you in the face, without objectively analysing the facts, you will live in ignorant bliss never knowing you were wrong.
Where is the logic in this? The obvious conclusion is that the fluoride was the difference.
medicowallet, can you eloberate here?
Are you referring to fluoridation or fluoride generally?
Also, have you missed my earlier query?
Unfortunately such beliefs or mindsets are hard to change even when sufficient evidence exists - even if it's from those very same authoritative figures.
Do I really need to elaborate?
Is it not obvious what I mean in the context?
God, next thing you will all be arguing is that we should not use oxygen in anaesthetics as it is toxic.
+
No... because they are two very distinct and different processes... unless you don't see any difference between topical and ingested fluoride.
No I wouldn't. Why should I?
But Oxygen toxicity is a recognised medical condition. Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fluoride can be toxic?
sigh
1. If you read my posts, and the studies that I refer to, then you would know, without a doubt what I was referring to.
2. If you truly think that I do not understand that fluoride can be toxic, then you surely did not read into the sarcasm of the post.
There is a Pommy Antique show on Austar where everyone who appears on it has bad teeth, presenters, contestants, auctioneers.
They even had a dog on it one night who had crook teeth.
Is this because Pommies don't have fluoride, or that they don't brush their teeth, or that they have free dentists who are no good?
gg
Finally we have a sensible statement here.. Why do some people develop coronary artery disease, despite never being overweight, eating the good foods, exercising etc, while others who transgress every known advice, never have any problem?Whiskers,
I don't know why he had tooth decay. I know he had good hygiene and diet and did not have any diagnosed disease. A genetic disposition to tooth decay would seem most likely.
But you seem to have a lot of trouble admitting the toxic issues, let alone discussing them if only for the benifit of those who have alergic reactions to certain chemicals such as Fluoride... not to mention a responsible attitude to the use of it and respect for it's misuse.
Also you wouldn't want to give the wrong impression to any young kids that may be watching that fluoride is the panacea of tooth decay... would you?
I find your attitude unlikely that of a responsible medical professianal, certainly not one of the caliber that I see... just another blow hard advocate of all things fluoride.
Whiskers;619935]Thanks for sharing IFocus... and yes that was a typical anecdotal observation/report of the time and even now. But as a dentist, correct me if I'm wrong, he was not particularly qualified to notice any other health side effects from in this case indiscriminate fluoride dosage and diet... not to mention severe lack of medical and dental support in remote aboriginal areas to offsett the adverse effects of our (western) foods high in sugar and now recognised often low in nutrition that they were introduced too by us.
My main argument in this debate is not whether fluoride in the water is beneficial or not, or whether it causes potentially very damaging side effects, but rather simply the assault on our personal freedom to choose for ourselves.
I simply cannot see why those who want to ingest fluoride cannot do so by taking fluoride on an individual basis, thus leaving the water supply (something which is absolutely basic to our survival) free of the stuff for those of us who do not want to take it. Just exactly what is unreasonable or unfair about such an approach?
And it's not reasonable for those advocating the use of fluoride to say that those who don't want it must adopt the additional cost and responsibility of seeking another source of water than that which we all pay for. Why should people have to instal rainwater tanks or expensive filters to counteract some unnecessary additive to their basic water supply?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?