That whole example of what happens when a tooth is left is cola for 24 hours.

[orangeapples]

What exactly does that example prove? It came up again recently, and I'm starting to get annoyed. I've never sat in a room for 24 hours with cola in my mouth. When I'm drinking anything, my teeth would be in physical contact with the drink for less than 5 seconds at a time. And in a 24 hour period, I'll have brushed my teeth twice and for most of those 24 hours I'm not drinking anything making air and my saliva the only thing in contact with my teeth for the majority of the day. Sure, if there is ever a reason for me to put my teeth down for 24 hours they will most certainly not be sitting in a cup of cola, however I do not believe that is what is trying to be proved by the experiment. As a reason to get people to stop drinking cola, it is very weak. Why is it still used?

 

[orangeapples]

I might need to specify something, so I'll get it out of the way now.

I'm not arguing that soda is not bad for you, just that the whole concept of the experiment is broken.

 

[ramboondiea]

its just to show that extended exposure to coke is bad for your teeth, the reason its done for twenty our hours is because it takes at least 6 for any signs of rot to show. ultimately its just a kind of shock experiment, which does prove anything because as you said, peole dont keep coke in their mouths for extended periods of time, infact criss are far worse for rotting teeth

 

[Biosophilogical]

It is less about the direct real world application, so much as it is an extended example of what happens from drinking coke. Basically it is saying "Limit how much soft drink you have, because the more you have, the further along the 'rot' spectrum your teeth will end up" by showing a worst case scenario.

 

[FalloutJack]

What exactly does that example prove? It came up again recently, and I'm starting to get annoyed. I've never sat in a room for 24 hours with cola in my mouth. When I'm drinking anything, my teeth would be in physical contact with the drink for less than 5 seconds at a time. And in a 24 hour period, I'll have brushed my teeth twice and for most of those 24 hours I'm not drinking anything making air and my saliva the only thing in contact with my teeth for the majority of the day. Sure, if there is ever a reason for me to put my teeth down for 24 hours they will most certainly not be sitting in a cup of cola, however I do not believe that is what is trying to be proved by the experiment. As a reason to get people to stop drinking cola, it is very weak. Why is it still used?

Because they're losing the cigarette battle, the 'war' on drugs, and there aren't enough AA meetings to go around.

 

[hannes2]

It is less about the direct real world application, so much as it is an extended example of what happens from drinking coke. Basically it is saying "Limit how much soft drink you have, because the more you have, the further along the 'rot' spectrum your teeth will end up" by showing a worst case scenario.

But is that what happens if you drink coke? I mean, often enough, the effects of repeated exposure to small doses of something (drinking) aren´t comparable to prolonged exposure (putting it into coke for a day). If you dip your finger into hot water and pull it back out before any damage occurs, and repeat that every now and then, you can accumulate 5 minutes of finger-in-water, and you finger will be fine. If you put it in for 5 minutes straight it´ll probably do considerably damage.
It might work differently for teeth, but all I´m saying is it´s not necessarily comparable.

 

[Jonluw]

Didn't mythbusters bust that one?

Besides, all it's doing is making a point that coke isn't exactly good for your teeth. Like we didn't already know.

 

[Broady Brio]

That sugar is bad for our teeth?
That coke has a lot of sugar?
That constant contact with teeth will weaken teeth?

As an avid drinker of coke, I drink quite a lot. Believe it or not, my teeth are strong and intact. Mainly because I brush them twice a day.

 

[Biosophilogical]

It is less about the direct real world application, so much as it is an extended example of what happens from drinking coke. Basically it is saying "Limit how much soft drink you have, because the more you have, the further along the 'rot' spectrum your teeth will end up" by showing a worst case scenario.

But is that what happens if you drink coke? I mean, often enough, the effects of repeated exposure to small doses of something (drinking) aren´t comparable to prolonged exposure (putting it into coke for a day). If you dip your finger into hot water and pull it back out before any damage occurs, and repeat that every now and then, you can accumulate 5 minutes of finger-in-water, and you finger will be fine. If you put it in for 5 minutes straight it´ll probably do considerably damage.
It might work differently for teeth, but all I´m saying is it´s not necessarily comparable.

But it isn't a case of "Drink coke and your teeth will be 'this'. It is saying "This is the extreme case". So the more frequent and prolonged the exposure is, the further along the 'rotten teeth' spectrum you'll be, even if it isn't a direct correlation (like 3 seconds of coke twice a day for two weeks might not be the same as 42 straight seconds of coke once a fortnight). It is using an extreme example (24 hours of constant exposure) to leave a visual impression on the children (someone saying "Coke rots your teeth" is no where near as effective as a practical demonstration. So sure, it isn't 'practical' because no-one swishes coke around their mouth for 24 hours straight, but coke (and other soft drinks) are damaging to your teeth, so the point isn't to scientifically prove that coke rots your teeth, but rather to give a more memorable demonstration of coke rotting your teeth. So it isn't about the validity of the experiment, it is about getting a pre-made message across through the experiment.

 

[Bane_Star]

It is less about the direct real world application, so much as it is an extended example of what happens from drinking coke. Basically it is saying "Limit how much soft drink you have, because the more you have, the further along the 'rot' spectrum your teeth will end up" by showing a worst case scenario.

But is that what happens if you drink coke? I mean, often enough, the effects of repeated exposure to small doses of something (drinking) aren´t comparable to prolonged exposure (putting it into coke for a day). If you dip your finger into hot water and pull it back out before any damage occurs, and repeat that every now and then, you can accumulate 5 minutes of finger-in-water, and you finger will be fine. If you put it in for 5 minutes straight it´ll probably do considerably damage.
It might work differently for teeth, but all I´m saying is it´s not necessarily comparable.

Your finger grows, damage will be repaired, your teeth wont grow back at the same speed.

Good dental Hygiene will re-mineralise your teeth but only if you avoid acidic foods, use toothpaste sparingly, etc etc (ask your dentist)

If you drink Coke, and it's on your teeth for 5 seconds, and it takes 2-3 seconds to start the de-calcification process for 1 micron of tooth, if 24 hours destroys a tooth, that means (24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds / 2 seconds per drink = ) equals 43200 Mouthfuls of Coke to destroy your teeth. (no brushing, no regen) Since a 500 ml bottle = 5-15 sips = 4320 bottles.

At one bottle a day.. thats 11 years.

Given that you do clean your teeth, BUT given that you also consume other food, Include natural recalcification, Lets just double that figure to 22 years.

Anyone here drinking coca cola for 22 years, and not a single filling?