Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Maki made an excellent post about her/his mums (a dentist) recommendations for baby/children teeth in the 'juice for toddler' thread. Thould i would start a specific thread on it and apologies if there has been one already.


Fluoride is not widely used anymore in Water Authorities. It was used solely to prevent tooth decay but is this type of chemical safe to use on an ongoing basis? There was an interesting article on Sunday in the Observer whether families should have free toothpaste with fluoride, link here. not sure if i would use it on our new kid when it arrives in the world shortly. This link is a website showing how fluoride is bad. So what does one do? What do you use on your toddler? And thanks to everybody for your posts on the baby mattress thread.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/15551-babys-teeth-and-fluoride/
Share on other sites

My question from the Observer piece is who gives a baby sugared tea or custard in a baby bottle? Ha!


It is so very confusing, I've always felt that I'm doing the wrong thing.


As a baby my son lived in a city with fluoridated water, so we just used a little baby toothbrush and water on his first few teeth and gums. Once in London, I didn't realize the water was not fluoridated and did not want fluoride toothpaste as well, so had non-fluoridated shipped in by family until someone told me about the lack of it in the water. Ooops, switched back to fluoridated but nervously as my son has never been one to spit it out. Now back to a city with fluoridated water and have switched to herbal toothpaste in confusion. Our city is now in the process of removing it.


So, I anticipate one of two things happening, either:


a). I will be told my son has had too much fluoride or

b). I will be told that my son has not had enough fluoride


Right? Can't win. Parenting is hard, Karter! :))

It's a slightly contentious issue in our household as Mr B read somewhere that the Nazi's considered using fluoride in the water as a method of control over the population as it's linked to a reduced questioning ability and increased docility (this may be nonsense, but he's pretty well read). My friend and I were both fed flouride pills by our parents and have no fillings now in our 30s and pretty good teeth. My friend stated she would far rather the good teeth than the questioning mind.. Mr B on the other hand has a keen mind and rubbish teeth with loads of fillings. I'm using smear of adult toothpaste on toddler B, but prob wouldn't hand out the pills these days..

Oh wow, it gets better.......


Having just read the "anti-fluoride" link, it appears that I might have to trade my poor boy in for a new one. It advises against formula feeding with fluoridated water, even though no one, anywhere EVER mentioned this while I was doing it.


Sooooooo I was feeding him poison (fluoride) mixed with poison (formula ::o it's a joke people!) in what was supposed to be the best bottle, the Avent ones which we were later told were toxic, and heating said bottles and sterilizing them in steam (did somebody mention leeching?) crap. And at every step, I did the research and made what I thought was a well informed choice.


So what I'm trying to say is all you can do is the best you can under the circumstances. And later when you find out they were all terrible choices in hindsight you have to laugh and move on or you will seriously drive yourself insane.


And after junior goes to bed (IF junior goes to bed) you have a quiet drink. To take the edge off. Because there's always an edge.

Hmmm, speaking as one who almost had a mother in law who lost all her teeth at the age of 15 due to growing up on Dartmoor where there was no fluoride in the water or the toothpaste I'd be inclined to go with toothpaste with fluoride in and just be very careful to stick to the advice re using a 'pea sized amount'.


This is the sort of thing that can drive us all into slightly psychotic parents. I say, make your decision and then go for it. Sometimes you can't do right for doing wrong!


Molly

Bumpkin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...read somewhere that the Nazi's considered

> using fluoride in the water as a method of control

> over the population as it's linked to a reduced

> questioning ability and increased docility (this

> may be nonsense...


Whether/not the Nazis considered this, neurological symptoms such as a reuced capactity to rational will manifest highly individualistically, and (-->this is the important bit-->) are not associated with ingesting small amounts of fluoride as is found in drinking water or toothpaste (unless you eat a whole tube, but let's not be silly!). Neurological sypmtoms may occur after true fluoride poinsoning and are likely associated with exposure to salts of fluoride, eg aluminium fluoride.


Paracelsus, the father of modern toxicology, had this to say on it...

'Everything is a toxin. There is nothing that is not a toxin. Dose alone determines toxicity.'


So, a small amount of fluoride IS a good thing. And, actually, when used as indicated the therapeutic window on fluoride for dental protection is pretty large. I would suggest that wherever you live, always filter your tap water, then use a fluorie toothpaste. Topical application is sufficient to protect teeth.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...