Chinahand Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The US Center for Disease Control has a detailed response to the work Roger has linked about the risk of Osteosarcoma and Flouride in water. This research, which the author describes as an exploratory analysis, adds to the scientific knowledge base on this topic. The author acknowledges that this study has limitations and further research is required to confirm or refute this observation. This paper is based on the analysis of an initial set of cases from a 15-year effort to study fluoride and osteosarcoma by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine and collaborating organizations. The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al., 2006). A number of studies regarding water fluoridation and osteosarcoma have been published in the past. At this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma. They also provide a pretty good review of the York study that saveourwater has alluded to: A systematic review of public water fluoridation was released in 2000 by the National Health Service (NHS) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, United Kingdom. This looked at the evidence on positive and negative effects of community water fluoridation. They identified five objectives and evaluated the studies relating to each objective. Based on the best available research they found that: Community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay. Fluoridation is still effective even with the use of many other sources of fluoride. There is no clear association between fluoridation and bone fractures or cancer. There appears to be no difference between benefits from natural and artificial fluoridation. There is an association between the water fluoride concentration and the occurrence of enamel fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential negative health effects were found. The full report can be found at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm.* saveourwater - the 15% increase is the increase in the percentage of people who have no dental caries whatsoever. The York study gives a median value of 2.25 for the reduction in the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth on average people will have if they drink flurinated water rather than not. 80,000 people - 180,000 fewer teeth to be filled or removed. With no clear evidence for any risks in terms of cancer or bone fracture. Are we really going to have to argue about these reports been psuedo-scientific? These are meta studies which have combined 214 different scientific studies to get its results - its as good as is currently possible and shows the risks are negligable with clear benefits. I have no fillings. My parents had a flouride coating put on my teeth when I was young; not everyone has that advantage. As I said before I've difficulty seeing the problem. People without any good evidence are making extreme statements about the dangers of flouride in water. That is an extreme exaggeratiion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Do the children with bad teeth drink water? Or would it make more sense to mandate fluoride in Sunny Delight, Tizer and alcopop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Chinahand, OK let’s just take a single issue here the Fluoridation chemicals themselves. DHSS would have you believe that they are important co-products obtained during the manufacture of phosphate fertiliser and that they are ‘manufactured’ to British safety standards. In reality they are the waste gasses scrubbed from the chimney stacks on phosphate fertiliser plants, they are not pure Fluoride and contain many other harmful substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium. It is this toxic waste (as it is officially classified if not sold to water plants) that they want to put in the water. There are probably just as many scientists, doctors and dentists against Fluoridation as there are for it so the argument is by no means settled yet. They keep trying to push this forward every few years and we will keep fighting them, but this time it looks as though it will go to the public vote so let’s hope people take an interest in the issue and speak out. Well said Simon. To obtain your 'optimum' daily amount of Fluoride (1mg) you need to drink 8 glasses of Fluoridated water. How many health fanatics do this every day let alone kids with bad teeth? UK government should introduce massive sugar taxes, and classrom education on diet brushing and oral hygiene if they really want to give us better teeth. The science is junk, the arguments are junk and so are the chemicals themselves, no wonder they want to pour them down our drains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 People don't look after their teeth - reducing tooth decay by 50% is a huge benefit. I have difficulty seeing the problem. If you want to consume fluoride then ask your dentist for a prescription for fluoride tablets. Toothpaste packages have instructions for us to avoid swallowing the toothpaste, and to especially avoid letting children swallow it. This is because fluoride can kill. By putting it in the water the amount of fluoride we consume will be completely uncontrollable. Be careful suggesting that fluoride in your water or toothpaste can kill you, without suggesting exactly what you mean. You run the risk of debasing your argument... Administering a drug without consent is battery in the eyes of the law. There is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a child if it consumes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Just thought I would put a little personal experience to this subject. Most of you know I'm a Yank who's been here for five years now. I look after my teeth very well with brushing twice a day, flossing, going to the dentist regularly, etc. And I'm sure most of you are aware that flouride is in the water in the states and has been for a very long time (i think it was the early 60's that they started adding it?) I have never had a cavity or needed a filling my whole life. I move over here, keep my same dental hygene routine and within the first two years of living here I have three cavities and therefore needed three fillings. Is this a coincidence? I find it hard to believe. I can, however, completely understand why people are uneasy about it. The very thought of something being pumped into the water supply for everyone's consumption seems unnatural. However, it really makes a world of difference for people's dental health. Does it cause cancer? As someone stated earlier - life is carcenogenic. Levels of cancer between this part of the world and the states seem to be more or less the same so I think we need to look at the overall picture. Just my two cents Dames Aflame - I want to have a choice over whether or not I consume fluoride. Pumping it into the water supply and having no way of removing it, denies me that choice. You can always ask your dentist to prescribe fluoride tablets if you want to continue to put that stuff into your body. Personally I don't. And my own children do not have cavities, and they don't use fluoridated toothpaste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 They shouldn't do it. I don't want that stuff in my water! I've lived here my whole life and have no fillings. A lot of it is genetic so flouride wouldn't make a jot of difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Isn't there going to be a public consultation first? "Manx people, do you want to reduce exposure to excessive speed tooth decay?" No. ... Putting fluoride in the water will not reduce exposure to tooth decay. Tooth decay is caused by eating the wrong things - sweets, fizzy drinks etc. If people want to prevent tooth decay it's really simple. I don't want my choice to avoid fluoride to be taken away from me. Not exactly true. Flouride reduces tooth decay dramatically.See statistics in IOM ORAL HEALTH STRATEGY Consultation document 2000 comparing regions in UK with flouridated water and those without. West Midlands 32% decay at age 5 IOM 48% West Midlands 31% decay at age 12 IOM 53% West Midlands 50% decay at age 14 IOM 69% 35 cases of oral cancer 1984-1993 Caused by what? 'Water fluoridation has transformed dental health in West Midlands' IOM half the poulation have trouble with their teeth Just over one third wear dentures of some sort. IOM children's dental health is among the worst in Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Isn't there going to be a public consultation first? "Manx people, do you want to reduce exposure to excessive speed tooth decay?" No. ... Putting fluoride in the water will not reduce exposure to tooth decay. Tooth decay is caused by eating the wrong things - sweets, fizzy drinks etc. If people want to prevent tooth decay it's really simple. I don't want my choice to avoid fluoride to be taken away from me. Not exactly true. Flouride reduces tooth decay dramatically.See statistics in IOM ORAL HEALTH STRATEGY Consultation document 2000 comparing regions in UK with flouridated water and those without. West Midlands 32% decay at age 5 IOM 48% West Midlands 31% decay at age 12 IOM 53% West Midlands 50% decay at age 14 IOM 69% 35 cases of oral cancer 1984-1993 Caused by what? 'Water fluoridation has transformed dental health in West Midlands' IOM half the poulation have trouble with their teeth Just over one third wear dentures of some sort. IOM children's dental health is among the worst in Europe WHY is the dental health of IOM children so bad? I've seen tiny children who barely have teeth eating sweets and drinking coca cola, and I bet the parents aren't too fussy about brushing the teeth properly. When my eldest daughter was in reception there was a child in her class who had to have all her teeth out because they were bad - and I had never seen her without some sort of tooth rotting sweet in her mouth. Some people swear blind that their childrens' teeth "came up bad"! Utter and absolute balderdash. It's what goes ON the teeth which makes them bad. Educate the parents, target the children individually, but NOTHING and absolutely NOTHING justifies mass medicating (I mean poisoning) everybody without their individual consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 This is a really meaty topic with a 50% split i guess. If they can prove its worth it for the long term health of people then i have to say i am for it. But they need to sort out the water first before they pump it full of floride. Read about chlorine in the water and that also is scary but if it was not in the water we would have countless bugs about. The water pipes over here are constantly getting dug up nearly every week there is reports of black water. get the water system finished first before they start anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I think I'd rather take responsibility for my own wellbeing than have it forced upon me. If it does go to public consultation, I'll be voting a big fat NO to it. If it gets approved, I'll simply stop using tap water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 If they can prove its worth it for the long term health of people then i have to say i am for it. They will never be able to "prove" it conclusively - but I'm sure they will come up with some biased research which will do, and which will not mention the negatives. Read about chlorine in the water and that also is scary but if it was not in the water we would have countless bugs about. But you can filter chlorine out. You cannot filter fluoride out. I prefer to decide for myself whether I want to be "medicated" or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Did you know? flouride * Almost all of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. * Fluoride's primary 'benefits' are topical, not systemic. There is no need to swallow fluoride. * Children are receiving too much fluoride today. There is a need to reduce, not increase, current exposures. * A growing body of evidence indicates that water fluoridation is ineffective and unnecessary. * The fluoride chemical added to water is an unprocessed, industrial waste-product from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. * Just as fluoride can damage cells in developing teeth, fluoride can damage cells in other organs as well. * Two-thirds of US communities, when given the chance to vote, have voted against fluoridation. Over 70 US communities have rejected water fluoridation since 1999. This is from www.fluoridealert.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 "Administering a drug without consent is battery in the eyes of the law." Administering anything against your will/ agreement also infringes your Human Rights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyinpink Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I am a dental nurse and personally i agreeb with putting fluoride in the water. I dont see there is any risk to public health, and i can see how people would benefit from it. Isle of man has a poor record for decay rates in children, and i feel that fluoride would be beneficial in helping reduce these decay rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Isn't the flouride in toothpaste enough? If children don't brush their teeth then what difference will flouride in the water make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.