Yarnlady is correct. Effect is based upon a number of things, including quantity, chemical composition, other chemicals taken along with it, and so forth. And the flouride compound in Prozac (fluoxetine hydrochloride) is definately NOT the same as that added to water (Sodium Fluoride, Sodium silicofluoride, or Hydrofluosilic acid).

Just on the basis of chemical composition alone, your supposition is invalid.

And before you get off on saying that any composition with fluoride in it is poisonous, let me kindly present a few other shining examples of otherwise deadly poisonous elements or chemicals which are not only non-poisionous in some forms, but absolutely essential to our lives:

Sodium: A deadly element, highly reactive to water.

Chlorine: A deadly element, highly reactive and VERY poisonous.

Sodium Chloride: Common table salt, without which we could not survive. Yet, too much can be bad four your health, too.

There are MANY such examples. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself.

And fluoridation is NOT a substitute for proper dental care nor is it an excuse NOT take good care of your teeth. It's an AID to cavity prevention, that's all.

If you're going to make a big deal out of the risks of fluoridation of water, then consider this: Life is FULL of risks. Our day to day lives are chock full of decisions dealing with risk assessment. Don't like it? Don't use it.

Like it or not, our potable water treatment has virtually eliminated the fear of many waterborne diseases in this country, and in fact you could say that it has contributed GREATLY to both our quality of life AND our increased lifespan in the last century or so.

This is NOT to say that we should be lax about our water treatment or that we shouldn't seek to improve it further. Don't get me wrong there.

And for such a big 'mind control drug', I sure don't see any signs of the masses walking around like zombies or robots. Pretty darned inefficient as a 'mind control drug', if you ask me. Waste of money and effort.

Since few will look at this well documented article form wikipedia, I am pasting it here for all to see:
Almost all major health and dental organizations support water fluoridation, or have found no association between fluoridation and adverse effects.[6][24] These organizations include the World Health Organization,[25] the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[1] the U.S. Surgeon General,[26] and the American Dental Association.[27]

Despite support by public health organizations and authorities, efforts to introduce water fluoridation meet considerable opposition whenever it is proposed.[6] Controversies include disputes over fluoridation's benefits and the strength of the evidence basis for these benefits, the difficulty of identifying harms, legal issues over whether water fluoridation is a medicine, and the ethics of mass intervention.[3] Opposition campaigns involve newspaper articles, talk radio, and public forums. Media reporters are often poorly equipped to explain the scientific issues, and are motivated to present controversy regardless of the underlying scientific merits. Internet websites, which are increasingly used by the public for health information, contain a wide range of material about fluoridation ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a disproportionate percentage opposed to fluoridation. Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common, and include claims that fluoridation is part of a Communist or New World Order plot to take over the world, that it was pioneered by a German chemical company to make people submissive to those in power, that it is backed by the sugar or aluminum or phosphate industries, or that it is a smokescreen to cover failure to provide dental care to the poor.[6] Specific antifluoridation arguments change to match the spirit of the time.[28]

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

probably because it has dulled their minds! I don't trust public water, I only use it to shower and wash clothes, I cook and drink using purified water from a vendor...but then again who's to say it isn't tampered with as well?

As a side note, it's very interesting to see (when one does a little digging) how many things/policies/programs/devic es America implemented that were Nazi-esque after WW2...

...my precious bodily fluids...

The Chief wrote: "And for such a big 'mind control drug', I sure don't see any signs of the masses walking around like zombies or robots. Pretty darned inefficient as a 'mind control drug', if you ask me. Waste of money and effort."

Define 'Robot'. One definition of robot is 'automaton' - a mechanism that is programmed or conditioned for particular processes of assessment. First program priority: "do not doubt the mainframe program!"

WOW! thats a trip.

1) "Bill Etherington MP calls fluoride "poison". Nazis supposedly used it to subdue people in concentration camps. According to a former Guardian alternative health columnist, fluoride is "in the same league as lead and arsenic".

The reality is that anyone making any confident statement on fluoride speaks way beyond the evidence. In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at York University to do a systematic review of fluoridation and its effects on dental health. Little new work has been done since. In the review, 3,200 research papers, mostly of very poor quality, were unearthed. The ones that met the minimum quality threshold suggested there was vaguely, possibly, around a 15% increase in the number of children without dental caries in areas with fluoridated water, but the studies generally couldn't exclude other explanations for the variance. Of course, the big idea with fluoride in water is that it can reduce social inequalities in dental health since everyone drinks it. But there isn't much evidence on that either.

So when the British Dental Association says there is "overwhelming evidence" that adding fluoride to water helps fight tooth decay, it is in danger of stepping into line with Ripper. And when Johnson says fluoridation is an effective, relatively easy way to help address health inequalities, he is really just pushing an old-fashioned line which says complex social problems can be addressed with £50m worth of atoms."
Source and further information:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/.../...alresearch.health


2) "David R. Hill, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in Aug. 1997, stated: "My own conclusion is that there are, at best, real unresolved and serious questions about the safety and benefits of water fluoridation and related uses of fluoride. The most recent evidence suggests it is not particularly beneficial, and certainly not safe. The most charitable interpretation that one can put on the situation is that old habits die hard, and the medical/dental establishment is slow to adapt to the realities of modern research, and is fearful of losing both face and law suits if they admit they made a mistake." "
Source and further information:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Fluoride-Conspiracy


3) "our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis."
Source and further information:
http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm


4) "Opposition to water fluoridation refers to activism against the fluoridation of public water supplies. The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation, although some continental countries fluoridate salt. Most of the health effects are associated with water fluoridation at levels above the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates), but those organizations and individuals opposed raise concerns that the intake is not easily controlled, and that children, small individuals, and others may be more susceptible to health problems. Those opposed also argue that water fluoridation is ineffective, may cause serious health problems, and imposes ethical issues. Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation also put forward conspiracy theories describing fluoridation as a communist plot to undermine public health. Sociologists used to view opposition to water fluoridation as an example of misinformation. However, contemporary critiques of this position have pointed out that this position rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../...ater_fluoridation


5) Further information:
- "how Dr. Moolenburgh led a successful campaign to end fluoridation in his native country, The Netherlands":
http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/editors/moolen.htm
- "Fluoridation - Mind Control of the Masses":
http://www.befreetech.com/fluoridation.htm
- "paradoxical effects":
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/97-30-2/302-134.htm

There's plenty of us that question it. I don't do fluoride in my house. I didn't know about the suggestion issue though. I just knew about the health risks.