Yes, you have to search to find one.

How many toothpaste products don't have fluoride? It must be around 1%.

While I understand the need to apply fluoride to children's teeth, I've never understood the need to put it in the drinking water so that everybody can drink it. From multiple directions it just doesn't make sense to me. Our muni system is one of the few that doesn't fluoridate, in spite of taking an SRF loan or grant from the Feds (where fluoridation is usually attached as a requirement to get the money).

And, my teeth were damaged by fluoridosis (sp?) according to my last few dentists. My teeth were certainly damaged by this substance. (didn't grow up here)

I absolutely agree. For some people the main iodine source is from iodized table salt, and with doctors recommending low salt intake for years now, many people are deficient. Symptoms appear only after a long time.
Also, the official RDA is tiny for iodine, and might be sufficient for an already healthy person, but is nowhere near enough to rebuild from a deficiency. Populations living naturally on high seafood diet can easily consume many times the RDA with no negative effects.

RO is relatively cheap compared to buying bottled water, but some may also need to add mineral supplements (or preferably change diets.) Thanks for the informed observations, rjajr. +1

Yet another conflicting study without sufficient explanation or any examination into side effects.

The council voted correctly as Councilman Farrell explained:
Ward 7 Coun. Druh Farrell was one of those in favour of removing it, arguing that helping families who couldn't afford fluoridated toothpaste would be a better idea than giving it to the entire population.
...
"I would really question our right to put [fluoride] in, but … I don't question at all our right to remove it."

Perhaps they didn't budget for the toothpaste or it's delivery method. Seems like dentists in certain areas would be an obvious solution for delivery and local charities could have provided the funding.
Instead as usual the liberal writer wants to apply more government oppression as the solution.

Perhaps iodine supplementation is a better solution for both (et al) problems. (My nutritionist recommends it when indicated.)

The problem begins with public water facilities; they should all be privatized and allowed to compete with each other, just like any other privately owned service. Just like any other private service, there would be water providers that offered water with fluoride, some without, and probably many other variants. Customer could then choose water providers that offer the kind of water they want, and the problem with water does not even come up.

Anecdotally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I treat dogs with cancer, and I cannot cure them if they drink tap water. I have tried to determine exactly why dogs don't respond when drinking tap water, but I have not been unable to do it, in part because it is expensive, and the easier solution is to just clean up the water. Flouride and chlorine are the two most suspect chemicals, but there are too many other substances in water that could also prevent a response, like hormones and anti-biotics, just to mention a few.

Some patients switch to bottled water, and this seems to cause fewer problems, but plastic bottles contain plasticizers, like Biphenol A and S, which are hormone mimics that interfere with natural hormones, and promote hormone-sensitive cancers. And the softer the plastic bottles the more plasticizers they contain. Heat causes the plasticizers to leach out of the plastic, and you never know if your water sat in the sun or a hot warehouse somewhere before it was shipped to your local store.

One in two dogs alive today will die of cancer. The incident of male human cancer is about the same, and it is not much better for women. So, the risk of cancer is extremely very high for everyone. Based on the statistics, and my own personal experience, I believe everyone should be doing all they can to eliminate any potential sources of carcinogens. And your water is a good place to start because it is so fundamental to health.


Flouride is one of those many cases where we have some evidence, but no conclusive proof. But, based on the potential risks, and the fact that water purification systems are fairly inexpensive, I think it is prudent just to purchase one and just opt out of this controversy.

Article about how tooth decay increased when Calgary took out Fluoride from the drinking water.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary...

I agree kddr, that other things might also negatively effect thyroid. But the similarity of the chemistry of iodine and flourine means that the flourine atom replaces some iodine atoms in the metabolism. That results in less effective thyroid. However, in the teeth, the flourine does the same useful job as iodine. Most of the population is running with their iodine tank at minimum, so flourine helps with teeth. If it was tested on a population which were not so deficient in iodine, you could expect to see no benefit from flourine.

Possibly a reason not to make it a water additive as that would seem to have effect on more than teeth?

Please post referenced scientific studies. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

Excellent and to the point, kddr

Most people are completely unaware of the estrogen-mimicking effects of white fillings, which are also more toxic than amalgam fillings. But psuedoscience on the internet sure tells a different story!

This is so vary true and the ability to tell good studies from pseudoscience that is being pushed as reality to say things cause this or that... In fact as it related to thyroid there is more evidence of the estrogen like effects of soy playing a larger role than flouride as well the high omega 6 value in people's diet that are pro inflamm...The variables are numerous and we need to truly objectively look at date not opinion

Salta, one substance could be beneficial in low does and harmful in high doses. You are making a judgment with insufficient data. You are assuming that if a lot is bad, then a little is bad. That's a feeling, not a fact.

You are extrapolating from bone to teeth, which is not valid.

Who said the doses were the same?
I have suffered hypothyriodism in the past, and it takes a long time to repair. If you were to ask me how much it is acceptable to impede the thyroids of a whole population, my answer would be zero.

http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/o...

"Only in doses greatly in excess of those used to reduce caries" quote from scientific study and review. You guys are killing me! Where is your scientific Objectivism?!?!

Agreed

I hear you, and I understand you have limits on your time, and that you are not in favor of forced treatment.
I don't see cause and effect either, for fluoride or against, just conflicting data that does not help me make a confident judgement. Having the government make the judgement is not acceptable to me. Letting irresponsible, biased government (or ill-informed voters or biased industry) dictate is the source of many problems, in health and other areas.

Flouride has an effect on the thyroid gland, reducing its activity. In fact, it has been a recognized treatment for an over-active thyroid. The same reason it was also used in the water in Nazi camps, to make the prisoners more compliant.

Freedom, the etiology of caries is complex and multifactorial. Remember that 2 stastics may be cause and effect, or they may be coincidental. Please don't jump to conclusions. I applaud your questioning of the facts and the search for reality. There is just so MUCH crap out there on the internet it is amazing, and especially about this subject.