S
I read something last week about how the fluoride in the water has really helped with cavities especially in children's teeth. We have a fridge freezer with the water and ice and the kids are constantly drinking water which is great but now I am worried that I should be supplementing their drinks with fluoride or doing something to ensure that their teeth don't suffer. I don't want to give up the filtered water as it tastes great and the kids look for water by preference rather than flavoured drinks. Anybody else worry about this and what have you done?
I think fluoride might be doing more bad than good.
I'm not an expert at all, but I don't think this is the case at all - it's one of those myths that has developed, similar to the Autism / MMR debacle. I have often heard people who are against flouride in water argue that where flouride is in the water, it gives rise to cases of flouridosis, where the flouride damages your teeth. However, this is due to high concentrations of flouride that naturally occur in the water in certain areas. In Ireland, the levels of flouride in the water, because it is artifically put there, is much lower and DOES NOT damage teeth or any of the rest of the body for that matter, but rather helps keep teeth healthy.
I'm not an expert at all, but I don't think this is the case at all - it's one of those myths that has developed, similar to the Autism / MMR debacle. I have often heard people who are against flouride in water argue that where flouride is in the water, it gives rise to cases of flouridosis, where the flouride damages your teeth. However, this is due to high concentrations of flouride that naturally occur in the water in certain areas. In Ireland, the levels of flouride in the water, because it is artifically put there, is much lower and DOES NOT damage teeth or any of the rest of the body for that matter, but rather helps keep teeth healthy.
Lazylump maybe I'm being unfair but people who claim to look at 'both sides' are usually just preparing to justify the 'alternative' anti-science side.
It isn't a political debate - there aren't two sides. If data exists to demonstrably prove an effect then there can be only one side. If no data exists there are no 'sides', just pointless guesswork.
As the following link to Ben Goldacre's pretty class Guardian 'Bad Science' piece shows nobody can say for definite either way, which leaves you with anecdote and conjecture.
http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?