LisaEsca


quality posts: 0 Private Messages LisaEsca
sdc100 wrote:Woot has some mechanism (a coupon code?) where Tx residents get the sales tax refunded so they effectively play no taxes on purchases. Look through the FAQ.




Darn, wish I knew that before! But my sales tax comes to $2.88, so wouldn't qualify, but it would have been fun trying. Thanks for the tip. Will try next time on a more expensive Woot.

hashpling


quality posts: 2 Private Messages hashpling

I use it to filter my sisters pee.

CONSUMERISM!

jhaea


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jhaea

The hose tucks inside the handle, which is attached to the lid of the pitcher. The attachment part is a lot like a portable dishwasher or washing machine hose, you pull down a ring a ring and fit the faucet into the hose (come with 3 different adapters for the faucet) and then let the ring snap back up and into place. Then turn on the faucet and it fills up rather quickly compared to some others. Unsnap the hose and push it into the cradle of the handle. Limited leakage, nothing I worry about, a drop or so.

momof2angels wrote:Can anyone tell me how much of a hassle it would be to fill this each time if you leave your faucet piece the way it is - sounds like you need to take the end piece off each time. Or can the nozzle thing from this filter stay attached - if my husband will let it? Another question - is the hose attached to the nozzle thingy and does it stay on if I decide to leave it on the faucet? Thanks for any clarification.



hashpling


quality posts: 2 Private Messages hashpling

I brush my teeth with Radium. It gives them a healthy glow and my government said its good for me!

CONSUMERISM!

jhaea


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jhaea

It worked great on our sulfur water, which is why I bough another set. I would never go back to drinking my tap with a Brita.

cochrankevinm wrote:is this going to filter out enough stuff to remove the taste and smell of sulfur from my parents' well water? The kool-aid is revolting; the iced-tea is gut-wrenching. I can't stand to even drink their coffee! I feel stupid when my family walks into their house with enough beverages to last our entire visit!



WesR


quality posts: 0 Private Messages WesR

Enough of this. Bring on the Sansas!

directive25


quality posts: 1 Private Messages directive25
frantix wrote:Brilliant advice, Directive25 because I was thinking, I could drop $20 but to hell with it, I'd rather drop 10-20x that! If you were comparing a Pur or Brita for $25 I could see... Why do people NOT get what the deals mean on woot?



I know the deals on woot, have been on this site for over 3 years now, but if you want something that filters much better, get yourself a berkey filter system.

directive25


quality posts: 1 Private Messages directive25
emikat wrote:I have a Berkey and love it costs a little more to begin with but saves you in the long run



Great to hear emikat

mrbarister


quality posts: 29 Private Messages mrbarister

wooot offf!!!

sjobling


quality posts: 0 Private Messages sjobling
directive25 wrote:I know the deals on woot, have been on this site for over 3 years now, but if you want something that filters much better, get yourself a berkey filter system.



Enough about the Berkey filter system. It's $209, and is good for 6000 gal, right?

Lets assume I drink a gallon of purified water per day(maybe I quit my job and go back to landscaping, or only have enough time between episodes of SG1 to drink water and vitamins). It would take me ~16 years to really get all this use out of it.

Much more likely: I drink less then a quarter of that and die as a result of accidental (or goverment-conspiracy-induced) ingestion of an entire tube of toothpaste long before I've gotten my money's worth.

Great, it lasts a long time, but I didn't come to woot to satisfy my urges for careful long term product investments for the house I don't have, and when $20 lets me test the waters.

sdc100


quality posts: 505 Private Messages sdc100
hashpling wrote:I use it to filter my sisters pee.



I don't know your sister's anatomy but it would be kinda hard to fit that hose on her to achieve the pressures necessary to blast the pee through the carbon. Maybe a guy, but not a girl. If you're gonna harvest urine form a woman (i.e. for hormones) might I suggest the drip-drip approach of a Pur or Brita?

sdc100


quality posts: 505 Private Messages sdc100
ckeem wrote:So apparently you do everything the government and its related governing agencies tell you to do.



Er, where did I ever suggest that I blindly follow governmental guidelines? Please quote me. Indeed, all the studies I cited in support of water fluoridation came from private researchers. In fact, the biggest supporters of water fluoridation are NGO's (non-governmental organizations) like Doctors without Borders and OxFam.

No, unlike you, I read independent peer-reviewed studies published in respected journals. And then I make up my mind based on the data and my training. And in case it matters, I'm a card carrying member of the skeptical group, CSICOP as well as s asubscriber to Skeptics and Skeptical Inquirer, and Scientific American. Does that seem like someone who blindly believes the government?

how about you? Why have you still not provided epidemiological studies showing that water fluoridation harms a population? You keep alluding to it, asking us to open our minds. Okay, my mind is open -- now ffed it with information.

It's all very simple. You want to convince us and public health ahtorities? Give us the data and let us evaluate it. Again, I ask that you go to teh Wikipedia page and tell me where they're wrong. They provide copious references, unlike you.

blameCanaduh


quality posts: 0 Private Messages blameCanaduh

Bought one at wal-mart. On the day I got it, I blasted diarrhea through it three times and it filtered in less than 4 seconds. Highly recommended.

directive25


quality posts: 1 Private Messages directive25
sjobling wrote:Enough about the Berkey filter system. It's $209, and is good for 6000 gal, right?

Lets assume I drink a gallon of purified water per day(maybe I quit my job and go back to landscaping, or only have enough time between episodes of SG1 to drink water and vitamins). It would take me ~16 years to really get all this use out of it.

Much more likely: I drink less then a quarter of that and die as a result of accidental (or goverment-conspiracy-induced) ingestion of an entire tube of toothpaste long before I've gotten my money's worth.

Great, it lasts a long time, but I didn't come to woot to satisfy my urges for careful long term product investments for the house I don't have, and when $20 lets me test the waters.



Sad to see you talk about conspiracies, when we are talking about having something that is much better, at a really low cost in the long run.

I hope in the future you do have a home, and a berkey system for emergencies.

danfiveoh


quality posts: 2 Private Messages danfiveoh

In for one, er two. I'm counting on this making my full flavor beer into lite beer.....

jsm725


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jsm725
flgator8 wrote:Then why is Woot selling TWO of them?



Brilliant.

gobux


quality posts: 0 Private Messages gobux

"Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene "

What about Hexacowabunga-yippeecayea-wowiezowie?

ckeem


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ckeem
sdc100 wrote:Er, where did I ever suggest that I blindly follow governmental guidelines? Please quote me. Indeed, all the studies I cited in support of water fluoridation came from private researchers. In fact, the biggest supporters of water fluoridation are NGO's (non-governmental organizations) like Doctors without Borders and OxFam.

No, unlike you, I read independent peer-reviewed studies published in respected journals. And then I make up my mind based on the data and my training. And in case it matters, I'm a card carrying member of the skeptical group, CSICOP as well as s asubscriber to Skeptics and Skeptical Inquirer, and Scientific American. Does that seem like someone who blindly believes the government?

how about you? Why have you still not provided epidemiological studies showing that water fluoridation harms a population? You keep alluding to it, asking us to open our minds. Okay, my mind is open -- now ffed it with information.

It's all very simple. You want to convince us and public health ahtorities? Give us the data and let us evaluate it. Again, I ask that you go to teh Wikipedia page and tell me where they're wrong. They provide copious references, unlike you.



Lol! Really? Unlike me you read independent studies. Wow. Apparently thats not what I've been saying the whole damn time! Jezus H Christ man!

I told you to use your google, you'd find the same site I did. I dont save every site I research so I dont have anything readily available! Do your own damn research. I dont need to prove anything to you, I was just (originally) trying tell others to keep their mind open (like a parachute it works better open).

Again, you can show me all the cites you want, just because its written doesnt mean its true (believe half of what you see and none of what you hear).

Again, I can show plenty of studies that have been disproved(although im not going to waste the time doing so to disprove someone one woot). Its common knowledge that studies are disproved on a regular basis.

Now go away damnit, and quit throwing your non sense in all of our faces. Just because you believe it doesnt mean the rest of us have to!

chungfoon


quality posts: 0 Private Messages chungfoon
ckeem wrote:Lol! Really? Unlike me you read independent studies. Wow. Apparently thats not what I've been saying the whole damn time! Jezus H Christ man!

I told you to use your google, you'd find the same site I did. I dont save every site I research so I dont have anything readily available! Do your own damn research. I dont need to prove anything to you, I was just (originally) trying tell others to keep their mind open (like a parachute it works better open).

Again, you can show me all the cites you want, just because its written doesnt mean its true (believe half of what you see and none of what you hear).

Again, I can show plenty of studies that have been disproved(although im not going to waste the time doing so to disprove someone one woot). Its common knowledge that studies are disproved on a regular basis.

Now go away damnit, and quit throwing your non sense in all of our faces. Just because you believe it doesnt mean the rest of us have to!



I just read through the whole thread and I must say, you're an embarassment. You keep saying you have these studies yet not once produce anything. And I'm not sure why you're asking the other guy to go away. He has over 20 Quality Posts and you have none. I sure would prefer reading his posts than your rants. They're definitely more helpful and informative so take your own advice. In nfact, I would prefer reading almost any other posts than yours since some are funny, some are informative, etc. Yours are none of the above. What a joke.

And oh yeah, citing an unverified website is the same as citing a published medical study, huh? haha

ps - ever wonder why no one came to your defense? hahaha

chungfoon


quality posts: 0 Private Messages chungfoon
ckeem wrote:Again, you can show me all the cites you want, just because its written doesnt mean its true (believe half of what you see and none of what you hear).



"Just because it's written" hahaha ... Go ahead, ignore the fact that those studies actually have data, are peer-reviewed and contains actual verifiable conclusions. Go take a basic course in critical thinking, loser.

kooosh


quality posts: 3 Private Messages kooosh
chungfoon wrote:"Just because it's written" hahaha ... Go ahead, ignore the fact that those studies actually have data, are peer-reviewed and contains actual verifiable conclusions. Go take a basic course in critical thinking, loser.



Ever heard of PCBs or Asbestos? Those products had peer-reviewed "studies" as well. Give me a break. This isn't an uncontroversial subject, so get off your high horse.


meeech


quality posts: 0 Private Messages meeech
ckeem wrote:So apparently you do everything the government and its related governing agencies tell you to do.

You do realize that we humans don't know everything. Just because it does a good job protecting us from cavities doesn't mean it doesn't have unwanted side effects.

If you want to know other products that protect from cavities, why don't you investigate "Tom's" ingredients list. They (amongst others) offer a fluoride free toothpaste which seems to work just as good for me as any other toothpaste at a similar price.

As far as providing you with sources, why don't you use your google. Thats what I did, I don't have the sources that I found readily available. I'm not going to go out of my way to pull up sources for you when they are just as easily accessible to you as they are to me(or anyone for that matter).

I understand not everything on the internet is true, but either is everything the government tells us. There is big money in fluoride so there are many reasons to push a product on us that may not necessarily be the best for us.

Apparently you haven't seen how many drug companies push drugs on us we don't need and then we come to find out they have horrible side effects. All that despite how many studies they had showing no side effects.

It happens all the time sir, open your mind, we humans don't know nearly as much as you think we do!

P.s. I LOVED nantrantatron's response to you earlier! Just another person here proving you wrong. We appreciate your information, but calm down and move on!



Hi ckeem....forgive me in advance for preaching to the choir I've thoroughly enjoyed the banter within this thread regarding fluoride. The points you make are excellent and very important. Sadly, most folks don't think about the chemicals and poisons they consume on a daily basis because we've been told that as long as the medical community, FDA and/or other government agencies say it's OK, then it must be so.

As you stated, after years of research and testing, there have been numerous foods, products and drugs given the seal of approval....only to learn later they prove fatal or cause irreparable damage.

Certainly, fluoride in water is just one of many issues. For example, it's widely known how damaging aspartame is to our bodies yet sugar-free sodas, drinks, candies, gum, foods, etc. are everywhere. And why? Because it's big business. It's all about the $$$!

I was surprised to learn that in the 80's Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of Searle, makers of the aspartame product NutraSweet. For 16 years the FDA would NOT approve aspartame for public consumption. They knew it was poison to the body. It caused tumors, numerous side effects, etc. Rumsfeld was brought in, along with a new FDA Commissioner and *poof*, NutraSweet was suddenly approved and went on to make millions of dollars....and it's still in the marketplace today! If you want to learn more about the dangers of aspartame, just google it. If you stop eating/drinking aspartame products then you'll learn for yourself how much better you will feel and the many symptoms that will seem to magically cease.

So, why is something so harmful to humans still being fed/sold to us? The FDA ran tests, did the experiments and came up with a negative result. BUT it still got approved and the data got buried. All the medical and scientific evidence did nothing to stop its introduction. While I appreciate posters taking the time to quote study after study, we must always look further into the motivation and the funding behind such studies and research. Like smoking, we as a public were not told the facts and the risks until it was too late.

But I digress....

I know....this is about fluoride in water. Sure, based on the various articles/studies I've read, fluoridated water has assisted with the delay of tooth decay. It obviously does not prevent cavities but slows down the the process. Surface fluoride may do some good for our teeth but do I want fluoride in my blood via the water I drink? Absolutely not. That's just good ol' common sense.

The way we learn what's right for ourselves and become more aware is through discussion and the sharing of knowledge, so I'm glad there's a place we can voice our opinions, beliefs and cite statistical data. No matter what side a person is on regarding the topic of water fluoridation, I hope all this "talk" allows people to take a closer look at what they consume every day. When it comes to our bodies, we need to delve further into what causes disease and illness versus treating the symptoms. Looking at what lurks in our water is only the beginning.

*steps off soapbox*

Interesting 3 part video series on the history of water fluoridation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo&feature=related

RickDr


quality posts: 0 Private Messages RickDr
ckeem wrote:Lol! Really? Unlike me you read independent studies. Wow. Apparently thats not what I've been saying the whole damn time! Jezus H Christ man!

I told you to use your google, you'd find the same site I did. I dont save every site I research so I dont have anything readily available! Do your own damn research. I dont need to prove anything to you, I was just (originally) trying tell others to keep their mind open (like a parachute it works better open).

Again, you can show me all the cites you want, just because its written doesnt mean its true (believe half of what you see and none of what you hear).

Again, I can show plenty of studies that have been disproved(although im not going to waste the time doing so to disprove someone one woot). Its common knowledge that studies are disproved on a regular basis.

Now go away damnit, and quit throwing your non sense in all of our faces. Just because you believe it doesnt mean the rest of us have to!



A friend told me about these pitchers so I just joined Woot. Unfortunately, the sale ended. Even more unfortunate is this discussion. You guys need to grow up! Actually no, the only one who needs to grow up is ckeem. The other writers, sdc100, koosh, gabygaby, etc all have legitimate points and presented their arguments like adults. Ckeem's approach. however, is "Now go away damnit...." ARE YOU SERIOUS? I haven't heard that since Junior High. I wasn't aware that Woot was your personal playground. I don't understand Woot's "Quality Post" system yet but I assume it's a good thing. Well, given your lack of any such posts, I don't think you have the authority to tell other Wooters whether they should stay. I'm willing to bet that other Wooters prefer those who post quality material rather empty rants.

Your childishness is further demonstrated with rants like, "you can show me all the cites you want..." You ask others to have an open mind, yet your approach is "I don't give a damn about your studies" -- without ever having read the studies to judge their validity. Contrast that with others, who actually asked you for your studies so that they can judge their validity. So who are the people here actually willing to learn -- and share? Certainly not you.

I just read your entire post and there is not one iota of usable or useful information, only vague claims and pointless rambling. AS others have askeda, why don't you simply provide a link or reference? Read the other posts. Note how Wooters help each other by giving links to reviews, manuals, price comparisons, etc. I don't know what your agenda is but your approach is self-defeating. I'm a newbie and found myself completely turned off by your posts. And guess what -- I too am undecided and concerned about fluoride. But I know that I won't be reading your rants for information. Mainly because there is none.

And btw, as a grad student, I appreciate the people who provide links, references, etc because I can then read the info for myself and not rely on someone else' interpretation. It's called intellectual courtesy and respecting each others intelligence. Take a cue from koosh, sdc100, etc.

Grow up, ckeem, and participate like an adult. Only then can we all have a serious and fruitful discussion.

mphillips76


quality posts: 0 Private Messages mphillips76
rhondalex wrote:Does anyone know if it will work on a bathroom faucet? I travel and stay in hotel rooms a lot and am trying to cut down on buying bottled water.



This company makes a water bottle with a built in filter that may work better for this use.

briannanoob


quality posts: 7 Private Messages briannanoob
RickDr wrote:Actually no, the only one who needs to grow up is ckeem..........Grow up, ckeem, and participate like an adult. Only then can we all have a serious and fruitful discussion.



I'm kinda new too, and was also looking for the pitchers. Oh well. But yeah, I agree with you completely. Ckeem's posts are ridiculous jokes. Actually, they're more pathetic than funny.

briannanoob


quality posts: 7 Private Messages briannanoob
kooosh wrote:Ever heard of PCBs or Asbestos? Those products had peer-reviewed "studies" as well. Give me a break. This isn't an uncontroversial subject, so get off your high horse.



Well, wasn't that chungfoon's point? S/he never said whether fluoride is good. His/her point was that verfiable data and peer review are important so that others can examine and possibly disprove initial results. The results you mentioned benefited from re-examining data, an trying to reproduce initial findings. I don't think you guys are in disagreement. He simply said that the fact that ckeem had no verifiable data makes his/her claims less compelling than those of sdc100. The fact that it is controversial is why we need data and studies to read over so that we can make intelligent conclusions. But ckeem refuses to provide any. Oh well.

jakewalczak


quality posts: 8 Private Messages jakewalczak

I love how the senseless banter and the unsolvable arguments occur on Woot.com (of all places) and last longer than the item was for sale. Why are you people arguing when you could be wooting at the woot off?!?!

ckeem


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ckeem

Lol. Wow. Thanks to those who backed me. To the rest of you, asking me to provide data, AGAIN, try google, that would be the exact same thing I would be doing.

Here, heres a link www.Google.com .
Does that make you feel better?

I didnt provide any link prior, because as I said, I dont have any saved.

Everyone here obviously knows how to use the internet so why do I have to re-research things? Others have already posted links backing my statements, why would I repost them?

Apparently everyone holds your hands and shows you everything in your lives.

The only reason I got pissed at SDC and told him to go away was because he kept pushing the same old non-sense and it was boring. Informative to a point yes. But just as "meeech" pointed out, unfortunately, sometimes there are ulterior motives for the reasons we are fed things and told. Money can bury any good studies against fluoride or any other product.

Also, an open mind is open to viewing both sides of a situation. I have seen the studies that SDC was providing. I am very aware that there are many organizations who are more than willing to promote the use of fluoride. I do not have a particular problem with fluoride, I just choose not to use products that have fluoride in it. My objective was just to possibly open a few minds to the fact there may be reasons a person may not want to use fluoride.

I also think the fact that your tube of toothpaste stating "Do Not Swallow, Contact The Poison Control Center If Ingested" is reason enough to be skeptical about your intake of fluoride.

If you have an open mind, you might use google and do your own investigation so you are at least informed on both sides of the situation.

As always, I love people who only partially read things.

Anyways, back to enjoying my woot off! Woot Woot!



P.s. I did post a quick video at the beginning of the discussion. A few other wooters did as well. So here they are again for those of you who repeatedly asked for links that you could have easily googled for yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk


http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=17791


http://health.howstuffworks.com/fluoride-poisoning2.htm

sdc100


quality posts: 505 Private Messages sdc100
kooosh wrote:When fluoride in toothpaste became widespread is NOT controversial. It was in the 1950s.



Wrong.

Not controversial? Yes, but not in suport of your claim. I just checked with my sister (a dentist) and a neightbor (an orthodontist), and both agree with my original statemennt: that fluoridated toothpaste got widepsread use only in the late 60's, and really early 70's. Do some research before making absolutist declarations. COnsider these factors:

1) Just because one brand, Crest, had fluoride, doesn't mean that it had widespread use for a long period. Certainly not enough to do widescale longitudinal statistical studies. I know because I design such studies and am part of several public health project.

2) Colgate, which has been making toothpaste since the 1890's, didn't include fluoride until 1968. They are and were one of the world's largest toothpaste makers. If they didn't use it, do you really think that it was widespread and accepted as the norm?

http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/Corp/History/1961.cvsp

3) The main reason was that Crest had a patent pending, again impeding widespread use. Simply put, patent exclusivity prevents widespread diffusion of any technology

"Richard E. HAGER, Carroll R. REISS, assignors to Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio: "Dentifrice containing a stannous compound and a carboxylated alkyl cellulose ether", US Patent 2,839,448; filed Feb. 9, 1955; pat. June 17, 1958"

4) You tend to quote Wikipedia without attribution. Well, if you read carefully, you'd see that it confirms that fluoridated toothpaste wasn't in widespread use in Europe until the 70's. There's no reason to believe that the situation was different in the US since Crest also marketed in Europe. And unlike you, Wikipedia actually provided a source reference by Pizzo et al -- in a respected medical journal.

"...most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay without its use, primarily due to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

And btw, don't bother trying to use this quote to prove your claim that water fluoridation is useless in light of fluoridated toothpaste. It doesn't say that at all. Just check the actual journal article. Also note the word "primarily" in that quote. IN other words, there are other factors -- and according to the vast majority of research, water fluoridation is helpful in preventing cavities, including those in developed countries. Since you're so fond of taking info from Wikipedia, read the text and you'd see where the available evidence points.

Considering these facts -- supported by actual links -- I tend to believe my sister and neighbor, and my inferences based on published research. Namely, the population was not widely exposed to fluoridated toothpaste until the 70's, just as Wikipedia and Pizzo wrote.

And btw, if you have reputable (i.e. academic) sources which unequivocably states that there was WIDESPREAD EXPOSURE in the 1950's, feel free to pass it this way. Otherwise, you simply made an erroneous inference based on the fact that fluoridated toothpaste was AVAILABLE in the 50's. Once again, AVAILABILITY does not equate WIDESPREAD USE, especially when it comes to chemicals.

=======

COnsidering the above, the decline of tooth decay from 1940-1970 can be attirbuted to water fluoridation, and not the use of fluoridated toothpaste as you had claimed (read your own posts carefully, word for word). Recent research of undeveloped regions that don't use toothpaste supports that claim. So yes, contrary to your claim (quoted below), brief dental exposure to fluoridated water (i.e. swishing) does have a positive effect. Refer to the list of references I posted previously. In short, water fluoridation prevents cavities. And public health experts clearly think that it still has a place in America, where some regions can't afford toothpaste or practice poor oral hygiene.

FYI, here are your claims, verbatim, courtesy of bryguyf69. Your second quote is especially wrong, since there is no other way to explain the results in areas that don't use fluoridated toothpaste.

Koosh wrote at 2:18am, "are you one of those silly people who still believes that fluoride in your water actually does ANYTHING to prevent tooth decay?"

kooosh wrote at 2:20am, "Drinking water or briefly swishing water with a tiny amount of fluoride does nothing. This would seem to be common sense."

ckeem


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ckeem
sdc100 wrote:Wrong.

Not controversial? Yes, but not in suport of your claim. I just checked with my sister (a dentist) and a neightbor (an orthodontist), and both agree with my original statemennt: that fluoridated toothpaste got widepsread use only in the late 60's, and really early 70's. Do some research before making absolutist declarations. COnsider these factors:

1) Just because one brand, Crest, had fluoride, doesn't mean that it had widespread use for a long period. Certainly not enough to do widescale longitudinal statistical studies. I know because I design such studies and am part of several public health project.

2) Colgate, which has been making toothpaste since the 1890's, didn't include fluoride until 1968. They are and were one of the world's largest toothpaste makers. If they didn't use it, do you really think that it was widespread and accepted as the norm?

http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/Corp/History/1961.cvsp

3) The main reason was that Crest had a patent pending, again impeding widespread use. Simply put, patent exclusivity prevents widespread diffusion of any technology

"Richard E. HAGER, Carroll R. REISS, assignors to Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio: "Dentifrice containing a stannous compound and a carboxylated alkyl cellulose ether", US Patent 2,839,448; filed Feb. 9, 1955; pat. June 17, 1958"

4) You tend to quote Wikipedia without attribution. Well, if you read carefully, you'd see that it confirms that fluoridated toothpaste wasn't in widespread use in Europe until the 70's. There's no reason to believe that the situation was different in the US since Crest also marketed in Europe. And unlike you, Wikipedia actually provided a source reference by Pizzo et al -- in a respected medical journal.

"...most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay without its use, primarily due to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

And btw, don't bother trying to use this quote to prove your claim that water fluoridation is useless in light of fluoridated toothpaste. It doesn't say that at all. Just check the actual journal article. Also note the word "primarily" in that quote. IN other words, there are other factors -- and according to the vast majority of research, water fluoridation is helpful in preventing cavities, including those in developed countries. Since you're so fond of taking info from Wikipedia, read the text and you'd see where the available evidence points.

Considering these facts -- supported by actual links -- I tend to believe my sister and neighbor, and my inferences based on published research. Namely, the population was not widely exposed to fluoridated toothpaste until the 70's, just as Wikipedia and Pizzo wrote.

And btw, if you have reputable (i.e. academic) sources which unequivocably states that there was WIDESPREAD EXPOSURE in the 1950's, feel free to pass it this way. Otherwise, you simply made an erroneous inference based on the fact that fluoridated toothpaste was AVAILABLE in the 50's. Once again, AVAILABILITY does not equate WIDESPREAD USE, especially when it comes to chemicals.

=======

COnsidering the above, the decline of tooth decay from 1940-1970 can be attirbuted to water fluoridation, and not the use of fluoridated toothpaste as you had claimed (read your own posts carefully, word for word). Recent research of undeveloped regions that don't use toothpaste supports that claim. So yes, contrary to your claim (quoted below), brief dental exposure to fluoridated water (i.e. swishing) does have a positive effect. Refer to the list of references I posted previously. In short, water fluoridation prevents cavities. And public health experts clearly think that it still has a place in America, where some regions can't afford toothpaste or practice poor oral hygiene.



Sir, you keep posting the same things over and over!

There is reason to believe that there are disadvantageous effects of fluoride whether you choose to believe it or not.

Stop with the posting of all the studies showing how good fluoride is. As I mentioned b4, many studies have been disproved. This may or not be the case with fluoride, either way, you should let me people make their own informed decision and stop pushing your agenda that fluoride is the best thing since sliced bread.

Thank you for your informative debate and have good night!

sdc100


quality posts: 505 Private Messages sdc100
ckeem wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk
http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=17791
http://health.howstuffworks.com/fluoride-poisoning2.htm



Oooh wow, those sure are reputable sources. I'll make sure to include them into our medical school's curriculum next year. Youtube hahahah

There's a reason most colleges don't allow Wikipedia as a reference. I happen to accept Wikipedia only if students show that it's backed up with actual studies, and that they've read the original source. Your references are even more laughable given that none of them are peer-reviewed or controlled in any way. LOL Get back to us when you come up with sources that your physician would actually use and quote. Those, after all are the same sources public health officials use to make policy.

sdc100


quality posts: 505 Private Messages sdc100
ckeem wrote:Sir, you keep posting the same things over and over!



Same tnings? Try reading carefully. Please quote where I have previously posted the links I just provided. Quote me. Give the time signature of the posts.

Please, if you don't want to read verifiable information, simply don't read. But don't tell others what to post and what not to post. Woot is not your personal playground. And if you have an official complaint, go complain to Woot. Otherwise, don't be so arrogant as to exercise editorial control. As long as some people find my posts useful, I'll, continue doing it.

ckeem wrote:
Stop with the posting of all the studies showing how good fluoride is.



Practicing editorial control again? I'll post as I see fit. Just as you should. As a physician, I believe in disseminating health information and correcting misinformation. You don't have to read it if you don't want to know what the current state of research is.

And again, QUOTE where I wrote "how good fluoride is." What I actually expressed was that WATER FLUORIDATION is an effective means to prevent cavities, and probably the mot efficient means in terms of costs and outcomes. I never said anything about fluoride in isolation, nor dosage. So please quote me to back your claims.

ckeem wrote: As I mentioned b4, many studies have been disproved.



It puzzles me why are you are talking in generalities when are specifically discussing water fluoridation. This Woot, after all, is about water filtration and not cold fusion, the steady state theory or thalidomide. "Other unrelated studies have been disproved" does not logically lead to "all the current studies supporting water fluoridation must be discarded." That makes no sense. What policy makers need to do is look at the existing evidence, and assess its validity. We do that in cancer care, cardiac care and yes, public health. And unless you can show me otherwise, the VAST majority of up-to-date (as of 2009) research show: 1) Water fluoridation prevents cavities; 2) It is efficient and cost-effective; 3) There are no proven widespread adverse effects in longitudinal studies, besides some cosmetic ones.

Here's an offer: I am teaching a course in Research Methods next semester. If you are in NYC, I will let you audit the course free pending departmental approval. I can probably also get colleagues to allow you into a class on Public Health. Contact me privately. Or I can recommend some books.

sdc100


quality posts: 505 Private Messages sdc100
jakewalczak wrote:I love how the senseless banter and the unsolvable arguments occur on Woot.com (of all places) and last longer than the item was for sale. Why are you people arguing when you could be wooting at the woot off?!?!



The two aren't mutually exclusive! FYI, I've already Wooted 5 times this Wootoff -- and even posted a bunch of messages.

Besides, what would you have me do when useless lighted golfballs take forever to sell?

Sorry about the arguing, but I'm a medical researcher and teacher by trade and it kinda alarms me when bad science is propagated...

Now back to the Wootoff!

ckeem


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ckeem
sdc100 wrote:The two aren't mutually exclusive! FYI, I've already Wooted 5 times this Wootoff -- and even posted a bunch of messages.

Besides, what would you have me do when useless lighted golfballs take forever to sell?

Sorry about the arguing, but I'm a medical researcher and teacher by trade and it kinda alarms me when bad science is propagated...

Now back to the Wootoff!



Geez man. You are ridiculous sometimes... You state that there is a reason schools dont allow wikipedia as reference tool. Yet you are the only one I recall using wiki as a reference. (sorry, ill breath and calm down now)

The references I used were just the ones I pulled from previous posts. There are many references out there, you just have to google.

And once again, there is reason Doctors say they are "practicing". Because its not an exact science. Things we used to think were the right thing to do have been since found to be wrong. One day the same thing could happen with fluoride.

Excuse me, but last time I checked "how good fluoride is" and its "effectiveness" are essentially the same things. Now you are just arguing semantics.

Also, excuse me for my "practicing editorial control". We live in a free country and should be able to speak freely. I was just tired of you repeating the same old banter and assume I am not the only one based on other commentary. Although theres always the possibility that I am wrong, just like your studies.

Also, again, if you read what I have written, I no where stated that "all the current studies supporting water fluoridation must be discarded." What I did say was that you always have to keep in mind that there is always the possibility that there could be things unknown about fluoride and its effects. Its impossible to run studies and tests for every possible negative effect, especially when some effects take years to develop. As medical researcher and an educated human being I'm sure you must realize this.

Im not suggesting that everyone should stop using fluoride or that it should be pulled from the shelves immediately. Just that everyone should keep an open mind. I dont believe everything I read or everything that I am told, and neither should you or anyone else for that matter. To do so is naive.

You also have to keep in mind that enough money can cause things to disappear. Just because there are no negative studies widely advertised, doesn't mean there isnt any. Why do you think it took so long for there to be resistance to the tobacco industries? They didn't want people to know about the negative effects so they made sure people didnt know as long as they could. In fact, most of them still refute the facts of how harmful their products are.

There is big money in fluoride too, so you never know. Im not saying fluoride is comparable to tobacco, I am just trying to give an example of how money and big business can control things.

Anyways, as much as I appreciate your offer, I have no intentions of being in NYC anytime soon for any extended period of time. I thank you for the offer anyways.

kooosh


quality posts: 3 Private Messages kooosh

@sdc100

Okay, you've convinced me that Colgate didn't put fluoride into their toothpaste until 1968. Fair enough. Earlier in this thread, you made this point:

"No, water fluoridation began in the 1940's. Fluoride wasn't added to toothpaste until the 1970's. In those intervening 30 years, cavity reduction was so pronounced that..."

Would you mind defending that statement since we're nitpicking the facts? What you said there is inaccurate in so many ways as to be hilarious.

I stand by my statement that water and toothpaste fluoridation largely coincided with one another, at least in the US.

I REALLY appreciate you constantly reminding us of your bona fides, but the fact is that you really don't know a damn thing about this particular subject. You're citing your sister the dentist as some authority on water fluoridation. Furthermore, you keep finding whatever study agrees with the point you're trying to make, citing it, and then it has to be treated as FACT.

Sorry guy, but seemingly legitimate studies on the effects of chemicals and toxins on the human body are proven wrong by history all the time. Think DDT, Asbestos, leaded gasoline and paint, Vioxx...one could go on forever.

I am going to finish up by asking you this question: Are you really comfortable having untreated industrial waste, that also happens to be a neurotoxin, added to something as ubiquitous as tap water b/c it may or may not prevent tooth decay? I'm not.

You claim to be some kind of researcher, so the term "precautionary principle" should mean something to you.

doors


quality posts: 0 Private Messages doors

Hey woot staff,
Going on 7 days and only indication that these were purchased is "your order is in"??? Any idea when this order will ship?

chris2fer


quality posts: 0 Private Messages chris2fer
doors wrote:Hey woot staff,
Going on 7 days and only indication that these were purchased is "your order is in"??? Any idea when this order will ship?



I was wondering the same thing. Any ideas?

Slickpappy


quality posts: 7 Private Messages Slickpappy

Staff

You will receive a tracking email when your order ships out. Orders will typically ship within 5 business days. The day you order does not count as day one, considering we won't get all the results until midnight. Business days is defined as Monday - Friday, NOT including Saturday and Sunday. To check your order status, go to the Your Account tab at woot.com, log in and check your order history.

If you have any further questions, please contact us at service@woot.com and we will be glad to assist you.

Sincerely,
Woot Member Services

doors wrote:Hey woot staff,
Going on 7 days and only indication that these were purchased is "your order is in"??? Any idea when this order will ship?



chris2fer wrote:I was wondering the same thing. Any ideas?


doors


quality posts: 0 Private Messages doors
Slickpappy wrote:You will receive a tracking email when your order ships out. Orders will typically ship within 5 business days. The day you order does not count as day one, considering we won't get all the results until midnight. Business days is defined as Monday - Friday, NOT including Saturday and Sunday. To check your order status, go to the Your Account tab at woot.com, log in and check your order history.

If you have any further questions, please contact us at service@woot.com and we will be glad to assist you.

Sincerely,
Woot Member Services



Member Services,
Thanks for the explanation..Hope I didn't ruffle anybody's feathers.

paymoretaxes


quality posts: 0 Private Messages paymoretaxes

I got mine today. You need to use the hose to fill this thing. There's no reservoir on the top half. It fills so fast I was wondering if it was filtering effectively. Tastes different than supermarket machine water, less sweet. So maybe some taste remained.