Toothpowder Question

[Daisy Buchanan]

Thanks for posting this information Daisy! I have always heard conspiracy talk about flouride in the water, blah, blah...
Let me ask you a question. Why is flouride put in water to begin with?

Fluoride was first introduced to drinking water in the 1940's in two cities in Michigan. It was put in place after many years of research (the article I have states that these studies started in 1909!) proved that the risk of tooth decay far outreached the risk of fluorosis. Fluorisis is a severe bone disease that causes the deterioration of either bone or teeth, and it is caused by high amounts of fluoride. The research done proved that small amounts of fluoride in drinking water would never reach a level that could cause any kind of bone deterioration. The study focused on areas that had natural fluoride in the drinking water and the rate of dental decay. It showed that in these areas with embedded fluoride, the rate of dental decay in children was much lower than those in areas without a natural fluoride supply. Here's a good article on it that will give you a lot of good facts. It has a history and some other information on bottled water and fluorosis.
Another fact that will make you hate the dentist even more: Most dental plans only cover yearly fluoride treatments at the dentist for children 18 and under. I'm sure you all remember that horrifying tray filled with goo that you had to keep in your mouth for five minutes. They still do these treatments, however there are a lot more options. There are fluoride lollipops, and the most popular comes in a foam that can either be put in a tray, or brushed onto the teeth if the child can't tolerate these trays. These treatments cost about 15cents per child. The dentist charges at least $25!! They are not covered after the age of 18. So, the reason why you don't get fluoride treatments at the general dentist isn't because we adults don't need them. They are rarely offered because most dentists know that we won't pay the absurd amount for them. We pay enough for the cleaning, why pay another $25 that insurance surely won't cover. The next time you're at the dentist, ask him what the charge is for one. We as adults do not get enough fluoride and it is very important to. That is why I highly recommend ACT fluoride rinse..... Anyway, for a good, unbiased history of water fluoridation, check out the above link.

 

[Feraud]

Thank you for the reply and the link!

 

[The Wolf]

so my question is

what should Golden Age re-enactors use for tooth paste/powder?
I would like to have a '30s/'40s looking toilet kit.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[The Reno Kid]

I just did a quick google and found this:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1/104-7944594-9235918?ie=UTF8&keywords=tooth%20powder&rh=n%3A3760931%2Ck%3Atooth%20powder&page=1

Thank you. I at least have some options now.

 

[DancingSweetie]

Baking soda should not be used as a replacement for toothpaste on a regular basis, it is too abrasive and will begin to wear down the enamel - and if you are an aggressive brusher will recede your gums as well.
You will end up with very sensitive teeth. That means no more ice cream!

 

[NightRaven]

There are a lot of people in the US who still believe this! They also think that the government puts anti-biotics in the water and that's why there is widespread anti-biotic resistance. I assure you, these are all conspiracy theories. The amount of flouride put into driking water is 2-4ppm, that is a miniscule amount, not nearly enough to cause any harm to even the smallest of children. I have been to quite a few water treatement facilities as part of a project I did while I was in school. I assure you, the amounts are monitored very closely. Once per hour to be exact. The level stays at 2 parts per million, but up to 4 is acceptable. Some people think that it will cause cancer or bone deterioration. There is no proof that flouridated water systems and it's miniscule amount have caused these detriments. One would have to drink an entire bottle of sodium flouride solution from the dentist to even feel sick. That is they have a bad tummy ache and blurred vision which effects decline within 24 hours.
Just a note, as you can see I'm kind of passionate about flouride!!

Ehm, even the smallest amount of fluoride can be harmful both for your teath and general health. There are a lot of contradictiary research on this, I know, but when so many doctors claim that fluoride is harmful, and even the fluoride supporters can't really come up with good statistics for the good effects of fluoride, I'd rather not take my chances thank you.
Several Australian studies, for instance, have shown a marked increase in cavities after fluoride was added to the local water supply. And several countries have outlawed fluorisation of water. My country, for instance, considered it a few years ago, but came to the conclusion that it was too harmful and would have little benificial effects.

Did you know that they used fluoride as rat-poison until the '50s ? But they discovered that it was more profitable to add it to toothpastes I suppose.

I don't have any links available at the moment, so don't take my comments at face value, just remember that fluoride is a debated issue today. There are some links and info on this wikipedia article, particullary on its talk-page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

Of note and relevance is this quote here:
""Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep" (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944."

- NightRaven

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Ehm, even the smallest amount of fluoride can be harmful both for your teath and general health. There are a lot of contradictiary research on this, I know, but when so many doctors claim that fluoride is harmful, and even the fluoride supporters can't really come up with good statistics for the good effects of fluoride, I'd rather not take my chances thank you.
Several Australian studies, for instance, have shown a marked increase in cavities after fluoride was added to the local water supply. And several countries have outlawed fluorisation of water. My country, for instance, considered it a few years ago, but came to the conclusion that it was too harmful and would have little benificial effects.

Did you know that they used fluoride as rat-poison until the '50s ? But they discovered that it was more profitable to add it to toothpastes I suppose.

I don't have any links available at the moment, so don't take my comments at face value, just remember that fluoride is a debated issue today. There are some links and info on this wikipedia article, particullary on its talk-page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

Of note and relevance is this quote here:
""Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep" (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944."

- NightRaven

Well, Night Raven, Ahem back to you. Now let me say this: There is no credible evidence linking flouridated water or the small amounts of flouride used to prevent dental decay and promote tooth reminiraliztion, to detriments in the body. There is NO evidence that flouridated water or flouride treatments increase the rate of dental caries(cavities)! However, there is a ton of fact based evidence to the contrary, which I will back up. Also, you are quoting information from 1944! There have been thousands, if not more, studies since then. So, just a suggestion, if you are going to do research on something, it is really important that your research is up to date.
As an example here is a quote of questions and answers in regards to flouridated water from the National Cancer Institute. As you can see, all of their research says that none of the dangers of fluoride are proven. These include research from the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, not small independent agencies who will try to disprove the benefits, no matter what the cost.Here is the link to the entire article with some very good fluoride information

"Can fluoridated water cause cancer?"

"The possible relationship between fluoridated water and cancer has been debated at length. The debate resurfaced in 1990 when a study by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, showed an increased number of osteosarcomas (bone tumors) in male rats given water high in fluoride for 2 years (3). However, other studies in humans and in animals have not shown an association between fluoridated water and cancer (4)."

"In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report, the agency said it found no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans. The report, based on a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population) studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date (4)."

"In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at the National Cancer Institute evaluated the relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (5)."

"In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer (5). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer (2)."

Here is the American Dental Associations website, which contains actual facts about fluoride and it's benefits.
Here is another site with excellent, proven information on the benefits of fluoride varnish. It has been proven that this varnish in young school age children cuts the rate of caries in half.

I would really like to know where it is you got your data on the 1ppm in drinking water causing problems. If they caused such serious problems, why would both the CDC and EPA consider amounts between 2 and 4PPM safe? Once again, this evidence is from 1944, not the most up to date evidence. I researched this in many dental archives and websites, and could not find one iota of evidence.

"Fluoride has been recognized as a key factor in maintaining dental health and fluoridation of public water supplies has been identified by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century." This is a quote by the CDC, Here is the rest of the article. Read this article, it talks about all of the benefits of fluoridation, from cavities to cost of dental care. I trust both the CDC and the EPA. Those people who say that it's a money making scheme, well it costs 30cents per adult per year to fluoridate water. I don't see that as a huge cost. It has also proven to help reduce the cost of necessary dental care.

As for your claims, I did find articles about the detriments of fluoride. They were not from national agencies, and I honestly wouldn't believe them. They are funded by people who aren't looking for the truth, but looking for any reason to put down the benefits of fluoridation. They were not fact based statements, and could not be backed up. In other words, they held no credibility. If their claims were true and proven, more people would be against it.

I could quote so many articles about the benefits of both water fluoridation and other fluoride practices. Of course any chemical in high doses] will cause problems. Overall, fluoride treatments and water fluoridation benefits by far outweigh the risks. As I stated in another part of this thread, nearly 80% of the elderly are missing most, if not all of their teeth. Why do you think this is? Well, they didn't have the benefits of advanced dental care and fluoridation. I wish I could find the article I have about the rate of dental caries in teens who drink bottled water. I can't quote it because I don't have the article, but it was proven that teens who drank bottled water which does not contain fluoride had a higher rate of cavities.
I could go on and on, siting fact upon fact from proven research. You are completely entitled to your opinion. But, I would suggest that you can only disprove fact with more facts. You have shown me nothing that backs up your claim that fluoride, in the amount that it is administered through dentistry or water, is detrimental. Also these references must be credible and reliable. Once again, if it was as detrimental as you claim, why is it so widely used. So please, if you want to tell me that I'm completely wrong, that's cool,just show me the facts and back up your claims with credible information. Thanks. And if you want more information and facts, I'd be more than happy to supply them.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

I couldn't resist, just a few more helpful links on the benefits of fluoride and it's effects on the body. These sites all have great links with very useful substantiated evidence.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/
http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2002SanDiego/techprogram/session_987.htm

 

[NightRaven]

I couldn't resist, just a few more helpful links on the benefits of fluoride and it's effects on the body. These sites all have great links with very useful substantiated evidence.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/
http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2002SanDiego/techprogram/session_987.htm

Well, Ms. Buchanan, I can see that you clearly have an interest in fluoride, but your findings do surprise me.
There's been a couple of years since I researched fluoride myself, but I did do a thorough research and reading at the time and my own conclusions were that fluoride was at best unecessary and at worst a risk.
Now, it's too late at night right now, but I'll try to find some links to recent reports some other day. But for now, could you answer the following questions if you don't mind ?

1 * If there's no risk of fluorisating the water supply, why was it banned in my country ?
2 * You claim that the people promoting the dangers of fluoride are not interested in truth, well what are they interested in then ? What could they possibly stand to gain from it ? Pro-fluoride people on the other hand do stand to gain from it. Industries get a cheap dumping-ground for their waste products and of course the people involved in the process has their sallary to worry about.
3 * You claim that 80 % of the elderly (what age group do you mean specifically ? ) in the States are missing most or all of their teeth. Why is it then that most of the elderly here in Norway, where there's no fluorisation, still have their own teeth ? And a lot of the reason people today have better teeth is of course a combination of better dental care, hygiene (people didn't clean their teeth as often before) and diet, there's too many factors to single out fluoride as a cause of better dental health.

While growing up, by the way, most of my friends had no cavities at all, while I had several in a row. We all used the same toothpaste and drank the same water. Maybe I drank more soda than the rest, I don't know, the point is many factors contribute to dental hygiene.

Hmm, the questions got mixed up a bit with some statements, but if you do have answers to any of my questions I'd love to hear them, as I remember those were some of the convincing factors for me back then.
(Not that it's a big issue for me, since we don't have fluorisation here anyway, but I still think it's an interesting subject)
(Oh, and yes, I do know that fluoride can occur naturaly in the water supply, but so can other harmful things as well, and no, the Norwegian water is not particullary high in fluoride content.)

- NightRaven

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Well, Ms. Buchanan, I can see that you clearly have an interest in fluoride, but your findings do surprise me.
There's been a couple of years since I researched fluoride myself, but I did do a thorough research and reading at the time and my own conclusions were that fluoride was at best unecessary and at worst a risk.
Now, it's too late at night right now, but I'll try to find some links to recent reports some other day. But for now, could you answer the following questions if you don't mind ?

1 * If there's no risk of fluorisating the water supply, why was it banned in my country ?
2 * You claim that the people promoting the dangers of fluoride are not interested in truth, well what are they interested in then ? What could they possibly stand to gain from it ? Pro-fluoride people on the other hand do stand to gain from it. Industries get a cheap dumping-ground for their waste products and of course the people involved in the process has their sallary to worry about.
3 * You claim that 80 % of the elderly (what age group do you mean specifically ? ) in the States are missing most or all of their teeth. Why is it then that most of the elderly here in Norway, where there's no fluorisation, still have their own teeth ? And a lot of the reason people today have better teeth is of course a combination of better dental care, hygiene (people didn't clean their teeth as often before) and diet, there's too many factors to single out fluoride as a cause of better dental health.

While growing up, by the way, most of my friends had no cavities at all, while I had several in a row. We all used the same toothpaste and drank the same water. Maybe I drank more soda than the rest, I don't know, the point is many factors contribute to dental hygiene.

Hmm, the questions got mixed up a bit with some statements, but if you do have answers to any of my questions I'd love to hear them, as I remember those were some of the convincing factors for me back then.
(Not that it's a big issue for me, since we don't have fluorisation here anyway, but I still think it's an interesting subject)
(Oh, and yes, I do know that fluoride can occur naturaly in the water supply, but so can other harmful things as well, and no, the Norwegian water is not particullary high in fluoride content.)

- NightRaven

First of all, I am passionate about all subjects of oral care because I'm a dental hygienist. I dedicated myself to four years of school for it, and the topic of fluoridation was very prominent. My father is a dentist. My grandmother was a hygienist and my great-grandfather was a dentist. Let's just say the subject was inherited.
1) I can't seem to figure out why fluoride was not put into the water system in your country. I can't seem to find any fact based reason as to why it wouldn't be put into use. Especially since in other countries the facts, statistical analysis from valid scientists, show that flouride decreases the number of cavities, especially in a growing child.
2) I never claimed that people who were against fluoridation weren't interested in the truth. It just seemed that there claims were unfounded. I couldn't find any scientific evidence to back up there claims.
3) My "claim" that nearly 80% of the elderly is not a claim, it is written in a dental book I have written by the American Dental Association. I just checked the date, and it was over 10 years ago. I went to their web site and the number now says that 32% of people ages 65 and up are missing most of their teeth. Their is a difference between a claim and fact, I am not making claims, I am stating written fact from a very reputable source, the ADA WHO, EPA, NIH and a few more very reputable worl recognized organizations with nothing to gain from flouridation. On the sites that are against fluoridation, I can't find one iota of scientific study to back up their statements, those are claims, and they are unsubstantiated. If I saw scientific research from a reputable agency to the opposite of my beliefs, I might just change my mind. Here is the site with some more info on endetoulism in the US. I did some searches on line to find the rate of toothless people in Norway, but couldn't find anything. I don't know anything about the dental rates of your country nor the amount of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water. Also, people ate much healthier in then they do now. And yes, for more than 100 years, brushing twice a day has been a common act. So, you say that people didn't take as good care of their teeth, I've heard otherwise. Today we drink much more soday, much more candy, and a lot more carbs. Carb intake and even the eating of fruit is one of the highest cavity creators.
As for you having more cavities than your friends, some people are genetically predispositioned to them. You might have weaker enamel, and process acids higher. You might have a higher amount of bacteria in your mouth. So, something like flouride which recalcifies teeth is something very important to maintain the longevity of your structures.

As I said before, this is not a money making scheme from a big corporation. These companies make very little money from supplying fluoride. As I've stated, and this is a fact not a claim, it costs around 30cents per year per adult to fluoridate water. This is money well spent considering the cost of dental care today, which is not free and poorly covered by insurance companies here in the US. It has been proven, another fact which is in one of the above mentioned articles, that wide fluoridation saves you the people a lot of money on dental costs.
I have been using fluoride all of my life, I am 32, I have 1 cavity. I use a fluoride rinse everyday, and have no fluorosis of the bone nor of the tooth structure. Also, my city water is fluoridated.
As you can see, I can go on and on about this topic. I wish I new why your country has decided against it. Although , this decision was made nearly 20 years ago. I wonder what would happen if the topic was re-visited today. Especially with all the advances in dentistry and research. Again, please don't use the word "claim" when someone is stating a fact. Especially a fact that is backed up by scientific data and long term studies by reputable scientists. I understand that you have a say in this too, and you keep saying that you have found all of this information in regards to your thoughts. I can't make an educated decision without this information provided, and until I do, I am only going to believe the facts I have at hand. From what I have learned from the CDC, ADA, WHO, NIH, and EPA, flouridation has the data and scientific evidence to back up its use. Again, if it was so dangerous and causing harm, or if it was added and just not doing anything to help, the government wouldn't just be using it for the sake of it. Here's a qoute pertaining to international fluoridation

"The Republic of Ireland passed legislation requiring national fluoridation in the early 1960s. Internationally, water fluoridation protects more than 300 million people in 40 countries."
Here's the rest of the article about the history of fluoride and fluoridation. It is loaded with "facts" about fluoridation, and it's necessity.
So, if you show me the facts in your favor. Facts wich can be backed up by real research, then you've given me something to think about. They have to be facts from nationally recognized organizations with a good track record. I've done a lot of research on this subject, and written a thesis on the effects of fluoridation. You keep telling me you have too, and that you have the facts to back it up, yet you have yet to show me these facts. I have searched for them myself, and can't find any real scientific evidence from a reputable organization to prove your assertions. So please show me these, and maybe I'll change my mind...

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Just to add, if you are worried about ingesting too much fluoride you shouldn't drink tea. It contains a high amount of naturally occurring fluoride.

 

[highflyer123]

Toothpowder Response!

actually i use a toothpowder all the time, not just for travel. The brand I am using at this point is Eco-Dent and I think it is the best one around. Tastes great (I use the mint, but they have different flavors) and it foams up real nice, is easy to use, and leaves teeth feeling very clean. portable and very satisfactory. i find it mostly at health food stores (such as whole foods or wild oats) but recently saw it for sale on amazon.com they have an informative website at www.eco-dent.com with lots of information about the product line which apparently has been in use for over 70 years. Hope this helps.

 

[fortworthgal]

I just use regular old toothpaste, but I'd be interested in trying a modern toothpowder. Come to think of it, I have a pretty funny toothpowder story...

A while back, while buying items to finish out mine and hubby's WWII footlockers (we're reenactors and we set up displays at a lot of events), I picked up several cans of original WWII-dated toothpowder. Most of the cans were still full and unused. I opened one can to take a look, and it smelled minty fresh. Since it smelled minty fresh, I immediately assumed it must taste great as well. You can probably all guess what happened next. I got out my toothbrush and went to town with the stuff. I had the loaded brush in my mouth and had made about 2 strokes before I started gagging. It had the most awful minty yet dusty/mothball-ish flavor that I cannot possibly begin to describe. Like brushing with a mouthful of mint-flavored dust. It was gritty, and didn't foam at all. One would think that not using 60 year old dental products would be a given - but you know, I just HAD to try it. Take my advice and don't! I spent the next 15 minutes rinsing.

FYI if you want a bottle for a footlocker display, try to find the yellow Kolynos tins. Those seemed to be pretty standard for servicemen in WWII.

 

[fortworthgal]

As for toothbrushes, I use Swissco brushes. They are made in Italy with natural bristles set in a nice vintagey celluloid handle. You can get them in either pearl or tortoise. I've noticed that the first time you use one, you can sort of taste the bristles but it goes away after the first use. I get mine from http://www.classicshaving.com/Home.html (as well as the Feather blades I use in my safety razor). Maybe it's my imagination, but the natural bristle seems to really work better for me. It gets between my teeth better than nylon.

We use Swissco as well. They work great and look nice, too! We get ours at Central Market.