Fluoride

[chops_a_must]

The purpose of this is to get the blood flowing. The hot brings the blood to the surface and the cold pushes your blood into the core. This stimulates your lymphatic system as well.

If you have a lymphatic or persistent swelling problem, the hot/cold reversal treatment is perhaps the worst thing you can do for it. In fact, it can be downright dangerous.

Please don't give out medical advice over the net if you aren't in the least bit qualified.

 

[Yeti]

People who do this have missing teeth regrow, enamel get thicker, fillings fall out and the tooth regrows, etc, etc.

Kimosabi, I am interested in researching this further. It has for a long time been my belief that the fact that we do not regrow our teeth should NOT be considered normal. Do you have any first-hand experience and/or can you refer me to further information on that, other than what I might easily find myself on the net, thanks.

 

[Yeti]

Amongst all this discussion, we are losing sight of the basic point:
that those who believe fluoride will be good for them are easily able to add it via tablets to their water, whereas those of us who know or believe it is harmful to us are simply going to have our basic right of a supply of drinking water removed from us.

Excellent point No.1

I notice none of the pro-fluoride or even the sitting on the fence people have commented on my suggestion that adding fluoride to drinking water is no different in principle to adding any other antidote to any other common problem.

Excellent point No.2

i.e. if you have poor dental hygiene, OK don't worry about taking responsibility for improving that and/or eating nutritious food rather than lots of sugar and acid: Big Brother will just add a poison to our water to help you continue to eat rubbish by providing a coating over your teeth. Doesn't matter that this measure will adversely affect a significant portion of the population.

Excellent point No.3

We would not, of course, dare to suggest that the removal of the Dental Care scheme has anything to do with the increased rate of tooth decay.
Every week I see people whose teeth are rotting simply because they have been unable to access basic dental care.

Excellent point No.4

Could someone - anyone who is pro-fluoride - please offer your response to my suggestion that, given we have an epidemic of depression, it would make sense to add anti depressants to the water supply.

Or perhaps we are more concerned about hypertension. So then we could add antihypertensive drugs to the water supply to protect those people who refuse to modify their diet and lifestyle sufficiently to lower their blood pressure. And in so doing, we drop the blood pressure of people who don't require this medication to a dangerously low level.

Really, really excellent points No.5 and 6 which I will happily borrow from now on!

I just can't see how either of these examples (and I could think of more)
are any different from adding fluoride to the water. It would be an entirely different matter if fluoride was unavailable from any other source.

But still no justification to override the population's free choice, and force it upon them in a way that makes it impossible to avoid.

Thanks for all your posts on this subject Julia, with your personal experience with Fluoride, you speak with more authority than most.

 

[2020hindsight]

I've recently found acupuncture (traditional Chinese Medicine doctor) to be amazing.

whatever else you say about acupuncture, you can't say it's pointless (old joke sorry)

 

[AndrewM123]

whatever else you say about acupuncture, you can't say it's pointless (old joke sorry)

Funny tho,,,,,

 

[2020hindsight]

I find acupuncture pins double pretty well as toothpicks

I tell you one thing... restaurants in HK used to have toothpicks at the table - really encouraged people to use them ... sometimes even handed out mint flavoured triangular toothpicks ... nice way to finish a meal....

It seems logical to me that that custom is a great help in tooth care..

If I'm not mistaken, 30% or 50% or 70% (or whatever- i.e."a lot" ) of the chemical attack to teeth occurs within the first hour or two after you eat - so the toothpick straight after a meal is "striking when the iron is hot", and arguably better that waiting for 4 hours to brush your teeth before retiring etc .

(PS 75.48% of all statistics are made up on the spot )

 

[Smurf1976]

i'm neither pro nor anti fluoride because the decision is moot for sydneysiders, but this will become a growing concern as time goes on.

we put antibiotics and hormones into our meat supply, fortify juices with folate and vitamins, pasteurise our milk and we have barely started with the genetic engineering of our livestock and crops. government health authorities do have a job to try and raise the standard of health for everyone and adding extras to our necessities is the easiest way to reach the largest number of people.

the use of antibiotics and hormones especially is a cause of concern to me.

Hydrogenation of cooking oil was "safe" when first introduced. So was asbestos, smoking and leaded petrol.

There's no way of knowing without long term studies whether or not any of the food additives / processes are safe.

 

[Julia]

Chops, re your criticism of Kimosabi, I think that's a bit unfair. Kimosabi's recommendation was originally that quoting a Dr Schulze on hydrotherapy. And as I understood kimosabi's comments they were in reply to my having mentioned that I'd found acupuncture really helpful for pain. I took his recommendation to mean that hot/cold water in the shower provided symptomatic relief from pain.
I agree with that suggestion and frankly found that to stand in the shower for several minutes alternating the hot and cold was of significantly greater benefit than all the physio and other therapists put together.

Had he/she recommended the hot/cold treatment in response to my complaining about swelling, then yes, you would have a point. But as it was in response to pain, I support what was said.

Bowey - thanks for a great post. Really interesting information. Makes me more irate than ever!

Yeti: glad to know someone agrees with me on the general principles outlined. Please share the thoughts with anyone you think will listen.

 

[chops_a_must]

Chops, re your criticism of Kimosabi, I think that's a bit unfair. Kimosabi's recommendation was originally that quoting a Dr Schulze on hydrotherapy. And as I understood kimosabi's comments they were in reply to my having mentioned that I'd found acupuncture really helpful for pain. I took his recommendation to mean that hot/cold water in the shower provided symptomatic relief from pain.
I agree with that suggestion and frankly found that to stand in the shower for several minutes alternating the hot and cold was of significantly greater benefit than all the physio and other therapists put together.

Had he/she recommended the hot/cold treatment in response to my complaining about swelling, then yes, you would have a point. But as it was in response to pain, I support what was said.

My response wasn't in regard to the pain argument, but the lymphatic system stimulation comment. Yes, in most cases of straight up pain, hot and cold reversal treatment is good. But a blanket statement saying it will stimulate the lymphatic system is incorrect. In a lot of cases it will be hurrendously bad for it. That kind of treatment, without the help of a muscle pump, will leave the lymph in the extremities for instance, which is exactly where you don't want it hanging around. It's why sports people have ice baths only, and then delay any heat contact.

 

[Kimosabi]

Chops, re your criticism of Kimosabi, I think that's a bit unfair. Kimosabi's recommendation was originally that quoting a Dr Schulze on hydrotherapy. And as I understood kimosabi's comments they were in reply to my having mentioned that I'd found acupuncture really helpful for pain. I took his recommendation to mean that hot/cold water in the shower provided symptomatic relief from pain.
I agree with that suggestion and frankly found that to stand in the shower for several minutes alternating the hot and cold was of significantly greater benefit than all the physio and other therapists put together.

Had he/she recommended the hot/cold treatment in response to my complaining about swelling, then yes, you would have a point. But as it was in response to pain, I support what was said.

Bowey - thanks for a great post. Really interesting information. Makes me more irate than ever!

Yeti: glad to know someone agrees with me on the general principles outlined. Please share the thoughts with anyone you think will listen.

Plus after a hot/cold shower you feel all tingly and alive afterwards...

Here you go Julia, this a full list of Schulze's various Treatments ==> http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/DS_pages.html

If you combine the the Hydrotherapy with Nutritional and/or Herbal Supplements you may even experience a Healing Miracle.

Dr Schulze actually recommends Dry Skin Brushing followed by a single hot/cold shower cycle for proper Lymphatic Stimulation to help your Lymphatic System Clean itself of Toxins that collect in the Lymphatiuc System...

http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/skinbrush.html

I do recommend that everyone does their own research, and watch all of the Dr Schulze and Dr Christopher video's etc. before trying any of this stuff.

I'm sorry Chops, considering just about all of us are now expected to get cancer in this wonderfully advanced modern world of ours, the medical/pharmaceutical/mass market food industry's have no credibility.

 

[BraceFace]

As Wayne has said, the issue is not dental health. If people want to use fluoride to protect their teeth they can easily add it themselves. It is not necessary to mass medicate the whole population so that those of us who cannot drink fluoridated water are deprived of a basic need.

Julia, you cannot add Fluorine or ionic Fluoride to your own drinking water. It is a complex chemical process that is done at the source.
Even if you could, people wouldn't do it themselves.Just like people don't immunize themselves against infectious diseases.

It IS a dental public health issue, and this is precisely the reason why it is added to scheme water in the first place. Take a look at Queensland's average DMFT (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth) numbers for children compared with any of the other fluoridated states and immediately you will see what I'm talking about. (I don't have the numbers on hand). The government has to spend millions of $$ on public dental health schemes and even in the last election, extra funding for dental health was a core promise from both parties. Fluoridating the water supply literally saves millions of our tax dollars being spent on dental disease that could have been prevented in the first place.

The other point people (yourself included) miss, is that Fluoride not only acts topically but also systemically in growing children. IE Using a fluorided toothpaste or mouthwash isn't much use to an infant whose permanent teeth are unerupted and calcifying within the jaws. This is where the fluoride really comes into significance - kids and children. The fluoride is taken into the matrix of the developing teeth before they erupt, strengthening then and improving their resistance to decay once they have erupted.

Sure the antifluoridationists (some have already posted) will tell you that Flouride is toxic and the nazi's used it etc blah blah blah. Well guess what, Oxygen is also toxic in high enough concentrations. 1 ppm ionic Fluoride in the water is NOT TOXIC. If it were, we'd all be dead.
These extremists will also probably direct you to propaganda websites that produce no creditable scientific research to back their claims. Do a Medline search and you will find literally thousands of reputable scientific, peer-reiewed publications in international medical and dental journals that support the use of Fluoride as one the the most successful population public health schemes of the 20th century.

You can believe the non-scientific rhetoric from minority groups or you can beleive the science.

Isn't it also interesting to consider that dentists, as a group, are the most vocal advocates of fluoridating the water and yet they stand to lose the most as a result of it. Fluoride in the water = less cavities= less work for dentists. They are effectively putting themselves out of business by pushing this agenda. Quite altruistic really.

If for whatever medical reason you cannot drink fluoridated water you arein the extreme minority. There's plently of reverse osmosis water filtration systems that you can install but in the mean time the rest of us can keep our pearly whites intact for life.

A nice little summary of this issue can be found at
http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/news/fullstory.php?storyid=55&siteid=142

 

[2020hindsight]

Take a look at Queensland's average DMFT (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth) numbers

THanks for the article Braveface - have to read it in detail later.

I think Julia is saying if she could just be directed to the people who are ignoring her pleas, then there'd be a few more of those DMFT's you mentioned - maybe the "dunno missing after the fight teeth".

You'd think she'd be entitled to govt assistance to remove the flouride at her home yes?
(Although I'd neved thought about it before she mentioned it)

 

[chops_a_must]

If you combine the the Hydrotherapy with Nutritional and/or Herbal Supplements you may even experience a Healing Miracle.

Dr Schulze actually recommends Dry Skin Brushing followed by a single hot/cold shower cycle for proper Lymphatic Stimulation to help your Lymphatic System Clean itself of Toxins that collect in the Lymphatiuc System...

http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/skinbrush.html

I do recommend that everyone does their own research, and watch all of the Dr Schulze and Dr Christopher video's etc. before trying any of this stuff.

I'm sorry Chops, considering just about all of us are now expected to get cancer in this wonderfully advanced modern world of ours, the medical/pharmaceutical/mass market food industry's have no credibility.

We all have cancer. You do, I do, everyone on this forum has cancer. It is a natural part of life. To say you can "cure" cancer is complete and utter bollocks. We would die without cancer.

I would also never give credibility to someone who can't get incredibly basic medical terminology correct. I've never heard of a gland getting rid of pathogens for instance. This guy actually needs a lesson on some really fundamental anatomy.

 

[ajoz]

A nice little summary of this issue can be found at
http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/news/fullstory.php?storyid=55&siteid=142

"Worldwide, around 360 million people drink water containing fluoride, including 40 million who benefit from naturally fluoridated supplies. Major cities using f luoridated water include Sydney and Melbourne, Los Angeles , New York and Chicago. Indeed, 47 of the USA’s 50 largest cities are now fluoridated.

Here are some major countries that don't use fluoridated water and their reasons.


Statements from European Health, Water, & Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation


UPDATES:

May 2007: A new study of European public opinion on water fluoridation, published in the journal Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology, reports that the "vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation." According to the study, Europeans opposed fluoridation for the following reasons:

"Many felt dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse. While people accepted that some children were not encouraged to brush their teeth, they proposed other solutions to addressing these needs rather than having a solution of unproved safety imposed on them by public health authorities whom they did not fully trust. They did not see why they should accept potential side effects in order that a minority may benefit. In particular, water was something that should be kept as pure as possible, even though it was recognized that it already contains many additives." (See study summary)

November 2004: After months of consulation, Scotland - which is currently unfluoridated - rejected plans to add fluoride to the nation's water. For more information, click here

April 9, 2003: The City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel's 41 year water fluoridation program. Basel was the only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in continental western Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain. To learn more about Basel's decision, click here.

For more news articles discussing the current fluoridation controversies in England, Scotland, and Ireland, click here

Germany:

"Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg

France:

"Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg

Belgium:

"This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

Luxembourg:

"Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

Sweden:

"Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

(See statement by Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, who helped lead the campaign to prevent fluoridation in Sweden in the late 1970s.)

Denmark:

"We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

(To read the Danish Ministry of the Environment's reasons for banning fluoridation, click here)

Norway:

"In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

Netherlands:

"From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

Finland:

"We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg

Northern Ireland:

"The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg

Austria:

"Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

Czech Republic:

"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:

* uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
* unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
* unethical ("forced medication")
* toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg

* Tooth Decay Trends: Fluoridated Vs Unfluoridated Countries
http://fluoridealert.org/health/tee...n [url]http://fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm
* Social Science & Medicine: Water Fluoridation in Eleven Countries (pdf file)
http://fluoridealert.org/farkas1982.pdf

 

[Julia]

Julia, you cannot add Fluorine or ionic Fluoride to your own drinking water. It is a complex chemical process that is done at the source.

Sorry I don't believe that. If that were the case, then why would my local Council have been handing out tablets to anyone who wanted them for many years. The Council felt that was the most reasonable way to allow those who wanted to consume fluoride to do so, without affecting those who don't.
They have now, of course, been overridden by the State government.

Even if you could, people wouldn't do it themselves.Just like people don't immunize themselves against infectious diseases.

Well, then, that's their bloody choice! I don't see why the whole population should be considered in the light of the irresponsibility of some minority.
We live in such a nanny state that soon most people will have lost the capacity to make decisions for themselves!

Sure the antifluoridationists (some have already posted) will tell you that Flouride is toxic and the nazi's used it etc blah blah blah.

By using such expressions as this, you are showing no respect for those who have opinions different from your own. I have not - and I don't think any of the other posters who are anti fluoride - been rude in presenting our arguments. I notice in all of your lengthy post you have chosen to make no comment on my original concern - that of disfiguring fluorosis.

You can believe the non-scientific rhetoric from minority groups or you can beleive the science.

In my own instance, it's not a case of belief. It's a case of the evidence of my own experience.


Why do you suggest so many countries who have fluoridated their water supply in the past have subsequently chosen to withdraw it?

 

[disarray]

Well, then, that's their bloody choice! I don't see why the whole population should be considered in the light of the irresponsibility of some minority. We live in such a nanny state that soon most people will have lost the capacity to make decisions for themselves!

equality of health is an important part of an egalitarian society. people want a safety net and a society that cares for its citizens so the tradeoff for this is things like immunisation programs and fluoride whether you want it or not.

compulsory immunisation helps eradicate diseases that have plagued us forever while saving money on costs associated with treating these diseases. the government is probably using this same logic in its push for fluoride, and it is a sound decision to make - greater good and all that.

the alternative is leaving public health up to the individual which will end up in a mess of outcomes with haves and have nots and people bitching about how come its poor kids who get polio etc. etc.

 

[moneymajix]

Ajoz provided a list of counties that don't put fluoride in their water systems.

My initial reaction to that post was "gullible Aussies".

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Follow the money...

 

[wayneL]

equality of health is an important part of an egalitarian society. people want a safety net and a society that cares for its citizens so the tradeoff for this is things like immunisation programs and fluoride whether you want it or not.

compulsory immunisation helps eradicate diseases that have plagued us forever while saving money on costs associated with treating these diseases. the government is probably using this same logic in its push for fluoride, and it is a sound decision to make - greater good and all that.

the alternative is leaving public health up to the individual which will end up in a mess of outcomes with haves and have nots and people bitching about how come its poor kids who get polio etc. etc.

Based on the evidence I've seen in this thread, it's drawing a long bow that flouridation is for the greater good ah lah immunization. The benefits just aren't that demonstrable in an improving dental hygiene era... and some are experiencing real harm.

I suspect a profit motive somewhere.

 

[wayneL]

Follow the money...

Snap!

 

[BraceFace]

Sorry I don't believe that. If that were the case, then why would my local Council have been handing out tablets to anyone who wanted them for many years. The Council felt that was the most reasonable way to allow those who wanted to consume fluoride to do so, without affecting those who don't.

That's because it's the next best option to fluoridated water. It has nowhere near the efficacy. It is also dangerous because if children are going to be exposed to potentially harmful doses of Fluoride, it's going to be because they are incorrectly dosed by their parents , not the water supply.

They have now, of course, been overridden by the State government.

That's because it is for the greater good of the majority

Well, then, that's their bloody choice! I don't see why the whole population should be considered in the light of the irresponsibility of some minority.
We live in such a nanny state that soon most people will have lost the capacity to make decisions for themselves!



By using such expressions as this, you are showing no respect for those who have opinions different from your own. I have not - and I don't think any of the other posters who are anti fluoride - been rude in presenting our arguments. I notice in all of your lengthy post you have chosen to make no comment on my original concern - that of disfiguring fluorosis.

I have chosen not to address your previous claims about Fluorosis of your own teeth because it seems to me that your claims about the staining of your own teeth are misguided and in no way related to fluoride.
Fluorosis is a mottling or discolouration of the enamel of the teeth that occurs due to high systemic Fluoride levels AT THE TIME THE CROWNS OF THE PERMANENT TEETH ARE DEVELOPING. IE From 32 weeks in utero to about 2 years of age for most teeth. It an intrinsic diclouration of the enamel, not a surface stain as your posts seem to suggest.

Unless you were exposed to high fluoride levels during that period of your life, your stains are not Fluorotic. When reading your previous posts (correct me if I'm wrong), you state you were in a Fluoridated area for one month (as an adult?).
Fluoride in the water supply does not cause extrinsic staining to the teeth either. Other minerals might.

In my own instance, it's not a case of belief. It's a case of the evidence of my own experience.

Your beliefs may be misguided by incorrect "information" given to you by your dentist at the time.

Fluorosis is a common finding these days, but for the most part it is a minor cosmetic issue. Tooth decay is a health issue. Moreover, Fluorosis is not caused by drinking fluoridated tap water. It is usually, from children/ingesting ingesting too much fluoride toothpaste in there early developmental years, being overdosed on fluoride tablets, drinking bore water when is naturally very high in fluoride and other minerals, or drinking infant formula that has been made up with tap water, thereby doubling the fluoride concentration.

Why do you suggest so many countries who have fluoridated their water supply in the past have subsequently chosen to withdraw it?

The previous poster has selectively quoted stuff from rampant Anti-Fluoridation websites to back his argument. That is his prerogative - I myself would rather listen to the public health experts. Just because certain EU countries have decided against it DOESNT make it the right thing.

In France, I can smoke in a restaurant - is that the right thing to do?

You do have a choice , get a water filter or move to Europe.
It is not a government conspiracy theory, they (and dentists) are actually trying to look after people here.