| From: | Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Second Hand |
| Date: | Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:24:48 -0500 (CDT) |
> this one it makes me crazy. Fluoride is there for your teeth. Talk to
> someone who's more than 40 years old sometime and they'll tell you about
> trips to the dentist's office and the unpleasantness that was having a
> fluoride treatment, the whole point of which was to strengthen tooth
> enamel.
Well, that's what they _claim_ it is there for. Personally I don't belive
it. If it was possible to just drink floride and get the effect of a
floride treatment, dentists would just send you home with a bottle of
grape flovoured flouride and say take X much Y times a day for Z days.
They don't so that, they apply the flouride directly to the teeth. Why?
Because otherwise is won't work [as well].
> Dentists very rarely administer fluoride treatments anymore. Why?
> Because they don't *have* to. They realize how nasty it tasted, and now
> that you get enough (trace amounts, really) from your drinking water, they
> don't have to worry about it. It's actually *less* dangerous to get it in
> small doses over time than it is to get a massive dose all at once (which
> is true for most things).
I live in an area with florinated water, and I have to get flouride
treatments every 2-3 years. Sure, maybe it's not as often as every 6 mo.
but I still can't belive that has anything to do with the water. (I think
it's my florinated toothpaste -- direct contact with the enamel.)
Saying the trace ammounts in the water you drink can help you teeth is
fairly ludacris <sp>. If you belive in homeopathic solutions than, sure; I
don't.
> If there's a conspiracy afoot, you must realize that that means
> that *every* dentist in America is in on it.
Not really, the government don't need *every* dentist to say something
works to enact a law based on that. They just need a few [bribed] ones and
a few [bribed/killed] ones shut up.
> Further, just because something is toxic to rats does *not* mean
> it produces the same effects in humans. This is why testing on lab
> animals isn't a true analog for testing on humans. Sure, it can give you
> some ideas, but consider this: silicone doesn't cause breast cancer in
> rats. It does in humans.
Actually, there is still no connection definatively drawn between cancer
and silicon in humans or rats.
> Finally, rats a pretty piss-poor behavior model for agressive or
> violent behavior. They respond with spontaneous violence to crowding and
> environmental stresses even *without* exposure to fluoride.
Okay, I'll belive this. Rats are testy little critters.
> It's easy to lie with pseudo-science. Being net-denizens we've
> all read that bogus warning about aspartame. It's easy to exaggerate
> one's findings, and it's easy to lie. The media doesn't help, because
> they'll sensationalize something when it comes out, but when it turns out
> to be crap they'll print a tiny little retraction, a miniscule "oops" on
> page D12 that completely torpedoes the story they've been running on the
> front page for an entire week.
Hey the aspartame thing is true. You just have to understand that the
amount of aspertame in a packet [or box] of sweetener is <<< [much much
less than] the amount of aspartame they were giving the rats. (of course
scaled to human wieghts.) [Kinda like the Yellow5 tests.]
> In short, unless you can show me some actual, honest-to-god
> scientific *proof* that fluoridation of drinking water is a significant
> danger to humans (and I have yet to see any that wasn't thoroughly
> debunked by a variety of respectable researchers), I'm going to have to
> keep drinking the water and enjoying the fact that I don't have to go to
> the dentist every six months to have my tooth enamel fluoridated.
Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
