As soon as a "doctor" recommends homeopathy, his credibility is shattered.

This is just another "scare story" that the news broadcasters use when they need to fill airtime.

I scanned the CDC document that they referenced (found via wiki). It seems to indicate that feeding infants and toddlers fluoridated water _may_ be harmful, but that a much greater source of fluoride is fluoride toothpaste.

A more rational response is to lower the fluoride levels slightly, while teaching people to reduce infant intake of fluoridated water. We are not being poisoned by our government, and the government has not "admitted that fluoridated water damages teeth."

That dentist seems pretty biased. He was willfully misrepresenting the state of scientific literature on the topic. The scientific consensus is clearly that Fluoride reduces cavities, especially among children and the poor.

He says the CDC has "already" recommended Fluoride be removed from baby water, as if this is the first recommendation in a progression towards banning Fluoride. But the CDC also calls water fluoridation "one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century".

Also, Fluoride in water is hardly exotic. Most groundwater naturally contains Fluoride, often in the concentrations that are recommended for public consumption.

Here's a more balanced set of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

>> ^notarobot:

2500 years ago, the scientific consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth. Just sayin'. >> ^teebeenz:
Actually Im well aware of the source of the information, its called the scientific consensus. Perhaps you should check your sources of information better.



Science didnt exist 2500 years ago.

He lost me at 'homoeopathic'. One wonders the credentials of such a man talking on the topic of fluoride toxicity, whom has a financial foot in selling anti-fluoride, homoeopathically based goods...on fox...

2500 years ago, the scientific consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth. Just sayin'. >> ^teebeenz:

Actually Im well aware of the source of the information, its called the scientific consensus. Perhaps you should check your sources of information better.

pseudo-science? Hmmm, consider your source...

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm <http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm>

but my personal favorite is this Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/ <http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/>

also

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

all that to say is I would not put much worth in that site :-)

I'd rather relying on scientists, researchers, chemists, toxicologists, etc... all professionals who have published studies in peer reviewed journals. But if you think that represents pseudo-science, then it is a sad day for critical thinking.

>> ^teebeenz:

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
>> ^notarobot:
I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

>> ^notarobot:

I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.

^Exactly.

My house caught on fire and I had to call the Nationalized High Temperature Oxidation Regulation Stromtrooper Force to come and put it out. Those government goons completely ruined my carpet by squirting fluoridated water -the same kind they put in toilets- all over it from water based hose cannon weaponry guns. Tyranny!

I believe this guy is a nutjob--but, I drink fluoridated water, so I'm probably being controlled right now.

I explained my judgment on Science videos. Since you don't seem to have been around when I established the channel, you should know that I have always ruled that just because a sift discusses science does not make it worthy of being in the Science channel. There are a bunch of bad science and pseudo-science videos I have booted out (homeopathy, water fluoridation conspiracies, evil vaccines, etc.) because they have misinformation and straight up incorrect theories.

Another great thing about science is that publications are judged by people with graduate degrees and correlating levels of knowledge so that people who know what they're talking about get a say.

Oh, and I am, in fact, debating whether this video is true, and that is why it doesn't belong in Science. Science aims at objective truth. Fuck this nonsense about "discuss the controversy". Shit doesn't fly up in Science.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
We're debating not whether this video's argument is true, but whether it represents legitimate debate dealing with science.
It's hard to imagine why debate about the factors underlying differential rates of science publication wouldn't be considered 'dealing with science and of interest to those interested in science.' If something is controversial, we add a controversy tag.
The great thing about science is there aren't authority figures who make personal judgments about what represents legitimate debate.

although i suppose it could be something else besides fluoride, and I suspect so. *promote

Thorium reactors, designed about the same time as uranium ones, produce very little waste and are far more energy efficient and safe. The US has a huge stockpile of thorium, enough to last for a very long time. They were shelved as a concept because they don't produce weapons grade byproducts...

http://videosift.com/video/Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor-Google-Tech-Talk-Remix

This is why there is no energy independence. Good ideas are buried for one reason or another and ignored. The only thing to give up here is the ability to nuke the planet a few thousands more times, the science is done and they are relatively cheap and quick to build...

The same for dozens of other good ideas that are buried. They don't fit with corporate or government plans and are forgotten. I daresay there wouldn't be a politician who'd even heard of a thorium reactor for example.

seems like a completely un-biased report by the petroleum industry.. very similar to how the tobacco industry examined the toxicity of cigarettes back in the day or how fluoride was examined.. although they kind of shunned any research that opposed their view, I'm sure it's for the overall good.

Direpickle has a point. There are 2 issues here, price of oil and oil products and self-sufficiency. In 2006 the US produced 8 million barrels a day while consuming 21 million. Self sufficiency would require a 250% increase in production and the US just doesn't have the reserves to accomplish that. In terms of price any reasonable increase (or even pie in the sky increase) in US production will be more than offset by increased demand in China and India and since the price of oil and hence gasoline IS determined on a world market the only direction price is going in the long term is up.

The only hope for ending dependence on foreign oil is to end dependence on oil, probably by fast tracking development of liquid fluoride thorium reactors since other alternatives won't cut it and few of us seem to want to do without our energy consuming lifestyles.>> ^blankfist:

Do you mind citing?

>> ^ButterflyKisses:

Something to consider:
The amount of fluoride in a pea sized blob of toothpaste, is the same as that in a glass of water.You should drink at least 8 glasses of water daily.
If you ingest just one pea-sized blob of fluoridated toothpaste, you are told on the tube to seek immediate medical help.What is the equivalent of 8 blobs doing to you every day?
Also, Tea can have up to 11ppm in it as well.
This being said, I don't drink much tea but I know of many people that make their tea with water directly from the tap and they drink it daily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Water_fluoridation


That only goes for crazy countries who put a topical medicine in their water. Where I live, and as far as I know in the rest of the EU there is no fluoridated water, only some chlorine in some countries.