I'm crazy about the kid. Rirrian?

I'm surprised that nobody has asked her to hold up a tube of toothpaste or maybe a little sign with a web address on it yet.

The poor dear has dental issues; wish somebody would come along and help her with some cosmetic dentistry.

Obviously Mac used the concussive force of rushing air to knock out the orderly so that his knuckles wouldn't be bruised so he could then use his spud-gun RPG -made from 2 toilet rolls and a tube of mint toothpaste- to blow out the wall so they could escape on the Segway he built from the old gurney, an autoclave, and a TI 99/4a.

God, I loved that show...

yep! My oldest sift is this one: http://www.videosift.com/video/Sorry-Dog a dog that says "sorry" Japanese style.

Second oldest is the Commodore VIC-20 commercial : http://www.videosift.com/video/Commodore-VIC-20-Commercial-with-William-Shatner

anyone remember the Cavity Creeps?: http://www.videosift.com/video/Crest-Gel-Toothpaste-Cavity-Creeps-Commercial

One of my fav commercials of all time, Mr Microphone: http://www.videosift.com/video/hey-kids-its-mister-microphone

Guess my sifting hasn't changed much in over 2 years

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

http://www.videosift.com/video/Elephant-Toothpaste#comment-542307

I cant believe this guy is so upset over toothpaste. I believe there are plenty of more entertaining subjects than GODAMN TOOTHPASTE! Also, if its not funny enough the first time, add a fucking in there for good measure. That'll really show how serious you are!

*commercial *parody

Reminds me of one millstone of a roommate I had, a smarmy spoiled-rotten 22-y/o who had never lived away from mommy and daddy. Only instead of using my toothpaste he constantly ate my food off my shelf in the fridge and wouldn't clean any dishes or anything else. It drove me fucking nuts and over a period of months I patiently went through varied attempts at asking him, then reasoning with him, then telling him, then demanding him to stop the eating and start the cleaning. He would merely say "OK" and stay the exact same course; he used to lie through his teeth.

After awhile I was repeatedly on the verge of telling him it was time for us to step outside for a manners lesson. I probably should have -- even though there was no guarantee that I would've taken him if we actually fought; he was chunky but he also lifted a lot of weights. I also hadn't wanted our apartment to be a place where we resorted to violence, but looking back, it was pretty damn intolerable for me already and who knows, the situation might've improved. Yes, and it might have gotten even worse, too.

There was other stuff too, as you can imagine, but suffice it to say I would've been overjoyed if he rolled back to merely using my toothpaste.

It was really starting to sink in, huh.
Yeah, I guess the first thing you'd want to buy for the few measly pennies you've managed to get a hold of is toothpaste and candy. Poor woman, she might not even have had enough for shampoo and conditioner.

So,... too much of a good thing can be bad. Well, I'll continue only brushing once a day. Good work, researchers! Carry-on!


As an aside, I have a friend who's a bit of a hippy, and hasn't bought fluoride toothpaste in many years;... 5 cavity average each time she goes to the dentist. No bullshit! Her record was 8, after not seeing the dentist for 12 months. Thats some expensive dental work right there. I havn't spent much time thinking about other possible sources (she's also a vegan... bit confounding there), but, I mean, I eat candy and cookies and shit like its going out of style, and hardly floss, and haven't had a cavity since I was like 13.

>> ^winkler1:
... Should I use the flouridated mouthwash I just bought? Come on Mythbusters!

Yes! The purpose of flouride is to react with the surface of your teeth, which are made of Hydroxyapatite. Mouthwash is the best way to do this (toothpaste is second best). Ingesting flouride accomplishes nothing, except for causing the detrimental effects of flouridosis. As I assume qruel was getting at, you don't need conspiracy theories to argue against putting flouride in the water supply.

That's by Drew of Toothpaste for Dinner and Married to the Sea, which he does with his wife, the irresistible Natalie Dee.

I just don't see why medicine should ever be added to tap water. It's supposed to be water, not medicine. People should have a choice in this. As stated many times, people in countries with unflourinated water have teeth that are just as healthy.

This just really reminds me of the use of lead, asbestos, and even radium.

"Radium was also put in some foods for taste and as a preservative, but also exposed many people to radiation. Radium was once an additive in products like toothpaste, hair creams, and even food items due to its supposed curative powers. Such products soon fell out of vogue and were prohibited by authorities in many countries, after it was discovered they could have serious adverse health effects."

Hey Gorgonheap

at the request of Constitutional Patriot could you post your response back intot he thread for people

thanks

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Actually my father is a agricultural scientist. One who has been in the industry for over 20 years now. He has a PhD in Phytopathology. Every one of his jobs has required him to test the effects of herbicides and pesticides on plats, animals, ground soil, and water systems.

In his years of research he has found that the only reason ecosystems become contaminated is because of improper use on the part of the farmer. Some have a philosophy of "if a little is good then a lot must be better". However when chemicals are properly used they are 100% biodegradable with no harmful effects on ecosystems.

I don't know about fertilizer that much. But having worked on farms for most all of my adolescent years I can see how they can be harmful. Coinciding all the protective gear I had to wear before fertilizing a field.

I appreciate your research and open mind about all of this. I need to do some more myself.

In reply to this comment by qruel:
Hey gorgonheap.

Thank you for posting about the use of hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). Do you realize that these are byproducts of the fertilizer industry and are classified as toxic and can contain lead ?

read this... it it insightful and disturbing

http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

______________________________________

I think your views represent what "most" people think about fluoride. But I would urge you to take a little deeper look as the claim that it "helps" the body are decieving.

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.

____________________________________________


you also talk about dosage, which is a very important aspect. id you mean to say that "It can have negative effects but the dosage and use of it can turn it from a helpful substance to a harmful one." you wrote the opposite in your post.

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf
_____________________________________________


you mentioned "Some studies suggest that fluoridation is associated with a median decline in the number of children with cavities of 12.5%, and a median decline of 2.25 teeth with cavities."

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).

fluoride is a unique substance because it both harms and helps the human body. At least that's my understanding. Like so many other things it's about dosage and usage. For instance take caffeine. Caffeine only takes 15-20 minutes to get into your blood stream and the effects last for about 3.5 hours. Low amounts of caffeine have a mild stimulant effect that can make you feel more awake and alert. Symptoms of too much caffeine include headache, tremor, increased sensitivity, irritability, nervousness, jumpiness, insomnia, stomachaches, and racing heartbeat. In very high doses a person may hear odd noises and flashes of light. Most experts agree that if people choose to drink caffeine occasionally in moderation there are probably no health consequences or possibility of acquiring a habit.

I believe fluoride is much the same way. It can have negative effects but the dosage and use of it can turn it from a helpful substance to a harmful one.

Fluoride containing compounds such as sodium fluoride, calcium fluoride, and sodium monofluorophosphate are commonly added to toothpaste, drinking water, prescribed treatments, and other commercially available oral hygiene products because fluoride increases the resistance of the enamel to decay. Originally, sodium fluoride was used to fluoridate water; however, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) are more commonly used, especially in the United States.

Some studies suggest that fluoridation is associated with a median decline in the number of children with cavities of 12.5%, and a median decline of 2.25 teeth with cavities.

But there is the Water Fluoridation Controversy.

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

Heres a few practical benefits:

TV Satellite Dish

NASA developed ways to correct errors in the signals coming from the spacecraft. This technology is used to reduce noise (that is, messed up picture or sound) in TV signals coming from satellites.

Medical Imaging

NASA developed ways to process signals from spacecraft to produce clearer images. (See more on digital information and how spacecraft send images from space.) This technology also makes possible these photo-like images of our insides.

Vision Screening System

Uses techniques developed for processing space pictures to examine eyes of children and find out quickly if they have any vision problems. The child doesn't have to say a word!

Ear Thermometer

Instead of measuring temperature using a column of mercury (which expands as it heats up), this thermometer has a lens like a camera and detects infrared energy, which we feel as heat. The warmer something is (like your body), the more infrared energy it puts out. This technology was originally developed to detect the birth of stars.

Fire Fighter Equipment

Fire fighters wear suits made of fire resistant fabric developed for use in space suits.

Smoke Detector

First used in the Earth orbiting space station called Skylab (launched back in 1973) to help detect any toxic vapors. Now used in most homes and other buildings to warn people of fire.

Sun Tiger Glasses

From research done on materials to protect the eyes of welders working on spacecraft, protective lenses were developed that block almost all the wavelengths of radiation that might harm the eyes, while letting through all the useful wavelengths that let us see.

Automobile Design Tools

A computer program developed by NASA to analyze a spacecraft or airplane design and predict how parts will perform is now used to help design automobiles. This kind of software can save car makers a lot of money by letting them see how well a design will work even before they build a prototype.

Cordless Tools

Portable, self-contained power tools were originally developed to help Apollo astronauts drill for moon samples. This technology has lead to development of such tools as the cordless vacuum cleaner, power drill, shrub trimmers, and grass shears.

Aerodynamic Bicycle Wheel

A special bike wheel uses NASA research in airfoils (wings) and design software developed for the space program. The three spokes on the wheel act like wings, making the bicycle very efficient for racing.

Thermal Gloves and Boots

These gloves and boots have heating elements that run on rechargeable batteries worn on the inside wrist of the gloves or embedded in the sole of the ski boot. This technology was adapted from a spacesuit design for the Apollo astronauts.

Space Pens

The Fisher Space Pen was developed for use in space. Most pens depend on gravity to make the ink flow into the ball point. For this space pen, the ink cartridge contains pressured gas to push the ink toward the ball point. That means, you can lie in bed and write upside down with this pen! Also, it uses a special ink that works in very hot and very cold environments.

Shock Absorbing Helmets

These special football helmets use a padding of Temper Foam, a shock absorbing material first developed for use in aircraft seats. These helmets have three times the shock absorbing ability of previous types.

Ski Boots

These ski boots use accordion-like folds, similar to the design of space suits, to allow the boot to flex without distortion, yet still give support and control for precision skiing.

Failsafe Flashlight

This flashlight uses NASA's concept of system redundancy, which is always having a backup for the parts of the spacecraft with the most important jobs. This flashlight has an extra-bright primary bulb and an independent backup system that has its own separate lithium battery (also a NASA developed technology) and its own bulb.

Invisible Braces

These teeth-straightening braces use brackets that are made of a nearly invisible translucent (almost see-through) ceramic material. This material is a spinoff of NASA's advanced ceramic research to develop new, tough materials for spacecraft and aircraft.

Edible Toothpaste

This is a special foamless toothpaste developed for the astronauts to use in space (where spitting is not a very good idea!) Although this would be a great first toothpaste for small children, it is no longer available.

Joystick Controllers

Joystick controllers are used for lots of things now, including computer games and vehicles for people with disabilities. These devices evolved from research to develop a controller for the Apollo Lunar Rover, and from other NASA research into how humans actually operate (called "human factors").

Advanced Plastics

Spacecraft and other electronics need very special, low-cost materials as the base for printed circuits (like those inside your computer). Some of these "liquid crystal polymers" have turned out to be very good, low-cost materials for making containers for foods and beverages.