4 ms·

adrian_b vs. health scientists throughout the world and history, ca. 1:1e10 Who to believe here, who should we believe here, hm, very difficult problem, adrian

adrian_b vs. health scientists throughout the world and history, ca. 1:1e10 Who to believe here, who should we believe here, hm, very difficult problem, adrian_b's passionate statements or practically all the professionals of the world. I go and contemplate over this for a while now. : )

jstanley 3y ago
1e10 people is about 10% of everyone who has ever lived. It's more than the current global population.
- mihaaly 3y ago
  One can score multiple times! : )
adrian_b 3y ago
If you judge the truth of the information you receive based on the claimed authority of those who provide it, instead of using your own mind to discern whether that information is logically consistent or inconsistent, that is sad and I believe that this should be a cause of concern for you. Consider the following facts, which can be easily be verified in countless sources, e.g. in books written by real chemists or "health scientists": The mineral component of the teeth and bones grown by a human body is made of hydroxylapatite. When a hydroxylapatite crystal is immersed in a water solution of fluoride ions, in the superficial layer of the crystal, which is in contact with the fluoride solution, some of the hydroxide anions from the crystal are dissolved in the water and they are substituted by fluoride anions, thus converting the superficial layer of the hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite. The fluoride ions bond more strongly to apatite than the hydroxide ions, so once formed the fluorapatite layer is more resistant to dissolution than the parent hydroxylapatite. In the conversion of hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite, like in any other chemical reaction, the converted amount increases with the concentration of the reactant, i.e. of fluoride and with the time of contact between hydroxylapatite and solution. All of the above explain how the contact between the tooth enamel and a fluoride solution creates a superficial tooth layer that is more resistant to dissolution, which decreases the likelihood of tooth cavities. The dependences of the conversion efficacy on fluoride concentration and on contact time explain why tooth brushing or mouth washing are far more effective in enamel hardening than drinking fluoridated water, when the fluoride concentration is low and the contact time is very short and most of the fluoride never enters in contact with the tooth enamel to have a chance to harden it. After the fluoride is ingested, it never comes again in contact with the tooth enamel, so there is no way for it to harden the enamel. Please tell us how your "1E10 health scientists throughout the world and history" have told you that ingested fluoride from inside your body can harden the tooth enamel from outside your body. Perhaps the fluoride ions use The Force to harden the enamel from a distance? The fluoride ions are carried by blood in most parts of the body, but the tooth enamel does not contain blood vessels. Even if it had blood vessels, they would have been buried in it and they would not have reached the external surface of the teeth, which is where the fluoride is needed for protection against dissolution. Moreover, the fluoride ions spread uniformly in the entire blood volume. Only a small part of the ions pass close to the teeth, most of them pass through the bigger organs, including through the bigger bones, which, unlike the tooth enamel, contain numerous blood vessels. Because the fluoride ions have high affinity for apatite, many of those passing through the bones stop there and remain incorporated in the mineral part of the bones. While at the surface of the teeth fluoride is desirable, in bones it is harmful because it makes the bones more fragile, increasing the likelihood of fractures. In conclusion, when drinking fluoridated water, only very little fluoride is retained in the tooth enamel, but most ends in the bones, so this method is much more effective in making the bones fragile than in hardening the tooth enamel. There are only 3 ways in which the ingested fluoride could protect against tooth cavities: eating one's own excrement, washing the mouth with one's own urine or biting one's own body and drinking one's own blood or washing the mouth with it. Whoever does not have such habits will not receive dental health benefits from ingested fluoride. I look forward to see how "all the professionals of the world" can explain the magical ingested fluoride effect claimed to exist by the proponents of drinking water fluoridation.
- mihaaly 3y ago
  I am so very sorry stepping on something so sensitive.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    It is not something sensitive, but I dislike the fact that the camp who has introduced water fluoridation does not have any rational or experimental argument in its favor, yet there are many who believe that water fluoridation is supported by "health scientists", so I believe that it is necessary to speak against such disinformation. Hardening the tooth enamel by fluoride is exactly like an anti-corrosive treatment of a steel surface. If someone would propose that instead of applying the anti-rust layer on the external steel surface, a hole should be made in the steel, then the anti-corrosive coating should be put inside, then the hole should be plugged, enclosing inside the anti-corrosive material, and after all this they would expect that the external untreated steel surface will not rust, they would be laughed at. But this is equivalent with the theory that one should drink fluoridated water to harden the tooth enamel.
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      Putting water in your mouth is external application.
      - rgbgraph 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - kup0 3y ago
      Since there are examples of locations having a more accelerated rise over time in tooth decay when water fluoridation is discontinued [1], I think one can extract from that, that possibly the explanation is that enough water is being drank/used in ways where it contacts teeth, that a difference is clearly seen in the dental statistics of a population monitored over time when fluoridation changes are made. [1] Article/study discussing Calgary vs Edmonton in Canada, linked elsewhere in the comments here that has this snippet: What’s happened since 2012? A study found that within a couple of years of ending fluoridation, decay in children’s baby teeth had risen by 65 per cent compared to 2005, while the increase was only 14 per cent in Edmonton, which continues to fluoridate its water. -- I won't argue the fact that there may indeed be problems with ingestion, and additionally that contact to the teeth is the only way for the fluoridated water to help, but I'm not convinced that existing water fluoridation isn't having a positive effect on tooth decay. Whether it's worth other potential health trade-offs is certainly a valid concern.

jstanley 3y ago

1e10 people is about 10% of everyone who has ever lived. It's more than the current global population.

mihaaly 3y ago
One can score multiple times! : )

adrian_b 3y ago

If you judge the truth of the information you receive based on the claimed authority of those who provide it, instead of using your own mind to discern whether that information is logically consistent or inconsistent, that is sad and I believe that this should be a cause of concern for you. Consider the following facts, which can be easily be verified in countless sources, e.g. in books written by real chemists or "health scientists": The mineral component of the teeth and bones grown by a human body is made of hydroxylapatite. When a hydroxylapatite crystal is immersed in a water solution of fluoride ions, in the superficial layer of the crystal, which is in contact with the fluoride solution, some of the hydroxide anions from the crystal are dissolved in the water and they are substituted by fluoride anions, thus converting the superficial layer of the hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite. The fluoride ions bond more strongly to apatite than the hydroxide ions, so once formed the fluorapatite layer is more resistant to dissolution than the parent hydroxylapatite. In the conversion of hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite, like in any other chemical reaction, the converted amount increases with the concentration of the reactant, i.e. of fluoride and with the time of contact between hydroxylapatite and solution. All of the above explain how the contact between the tooth enamel and a fluoride solution creates a superficial tooth layer that is more resistant to dissolution, which decreases the likelihood of tooth cavities. The dependences of the conversion efficacy on fluoride concentration and on contact time explain why tooth brushing or mouth washing are far more effective in enamel hardening than drinking fluoridated water, when the fluoride concentration is low and the contact time is very short and most of the fluoride never enters in contact with the tooth enamel to have a chance to harden it. After the fluoride is ingested, it never comes again in contact with the tooth enamel, so there is no way for it to harden the enamel. Please tell us how your "1E10 health scientists throughout the world and history" have told you that ingested fluoride from inside your body can harden the tooth enamel from outside your body. Perhaps the fluoride ions use The Force to harden the enamel from a distance? The fluoride ions are carried by blood in most parts of the body, but the tooth enamel does not contain blood vessels. Even if it had blood vessels, they would have been buried in it and they would not have reached the external surface of the teeth, which is where the fluoride is needed for protection against dissolution. Moreover, the fluoride ions spread uniformly in the entire blood volume. Only a small part of the ions pass close to the teeth, most of them pass through the bigger organs, including through the bigger bones, which, unlike the tooth enamel, contain numerous blood vessels. Because the fluoride ions have high affinity for apatite, many of those passing through the bones stop there and remain incorporated in the mineral part of the bones. While at the surface of the teeth fluoride is desirable, in bones it is harmful because it makes the bones more fragile, increasing the likelihood of fractures. In conclusion, when drinking fluoridated water, only very little fluoride is retained in the tooth enamel, but most ends in the bones, so this method is much more effective in making the bones fragile than in hardening the tooth enamel. There are only 3 ways in which the ingested fluoride could protect against tooth cavities: eating one's own excrement, washing the mouth with one's own urine or biting one's own body and drinking one's own blood or washing the mouth with it. Whoever does not have such habits will not receive dental health benefits from ingested fluoride. I look forward to see how "all the professionals of the world" can explain the magical ingested fluoride effect claimed to exist by the proponents of drinking water fluoridation.

mihaaly 3y ago
I am so very sorry stepping on something so sensitive.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  It is not something sensitive, but I dislike the fact that the camp who has introduced water fluoridation does not have any rational or experimental argument in its favor, yet there are many who believe that water fluoridation is supported by "health scientists", so I believe that it is necessary to speak against such disinformation. Hardening the tooth enamel by fluoride is exactly like an anti-corrosive treatment of a steel surface. If someone would propose that instead of applying the anti-rust layer on the external steel surface, a hole should be made in the steel, then the anti-corrosive coating should be put inside, then the hole should be plugged, enclosing inside the anti-corrosive material, and after all this they would expect that the external untreated steel surface will not rust, they would be laughed at. But this is equivalent with the theory that one should drink fluoridated water to harden the tooth enamel.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Putting water in your mouth is external application.
    - rgbgraph 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - kup0 3y ago
    Since there are examples of locations having a more accelerated rise over time in tooth decay when water fluoridation is discontinued [1], I think one can extract from that, that possibly the explanation is that enough water is being drank/used in ways where it contacts teeth, that a difference is clearly seen in the dental statistics of a population monitored over time when fluoridation changes are made. [1] Article/study discussing Calgary vs Edmonton in Canada, linked elsewhere in the comments here that has this snippet: What’s happened since 2012? A study found that within a couple of years of ending fluoridation, decay in children’s baby teeth had risen by 65 per cent compared to 2005, while the increase was only 14 per cent in Edmonton, which continues to fluoridate its water. -- I won't argue the fact that there may indeed be problems with ingestion, and additionally that contact to the teeth is the only way for the fluoridated water to help, but I'm not convinced that existing water fluoridation isn't having a positive effect on tooth decay. Whether it's worth other potential health trade-offs is certainly a valid concern.