Fluoride In The Water

[camembert]

This is what decay looks like....

Worse than fluorosis?

[Sparky]

But without education, flouridation of the populous is a pointless waste of money because the problem is being disguised and not addressed.

 

30 years ago I remember being awoken to check my health, why? The police were going door to door checking that the occupants were OK because the water treatment plant injecting flouride into the water had gone wrong and was pumping "massive" amounts of flouride into the water.

 

Now I don't know what too much flouride does, but obviously enough to cause concern.

 

For those who want it, provide flouride drops, it obviously doesn't cost that much so should have minimal impact on our DHSS budget.

[Sparky]

This is what decay looks like....

Worse than fluorosis?

 

And this is what a toothbrush looks like

[VinnieK]

This is what decay looks like....

 

Worse than fluorosis?

 

And that's what the teeth of everyone living in areas without fluoride in the water look like then?

[saveourwater]

I love the comment about drawing on material from the saveourwater website - just compare saveourwater's pictures of fluorosis with these ones from this New Zealand site - scaremongering.

 

Scaremongering? How? The images of fluorosis on our website www.saveourwateriom.com (LINK) are official Dean Index images taken from an Irish government document, they can be found HERE - LINK Page 37 of the report (page 38 of 61 on the pdf).

 

The other image we show on our website is this one: -

 

 

It is of a 15 year old girl who lived all her life in a fluoridated area of Ireland, the image was presented to the Irish Forum on Fluoridation as ‘evidence’ by IDOF (Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation) of damage done by fluoridated water.

 

 

I ask saveourwater, incandesent etc - why would the New Zealand Ministry of Health lie and distort about this issue? Or the CDC, or the WHO? They all say it is a safe, cost effective way of reducing dental caries.

 

Oh I don't know Chinahand, why could that be? Why would agencies that endorse fluoridation in countries that fluoridate maintain their position?

[camembert]

This is what decay looks like....

 

Worse than fluorosis?

 

And that's what the teeth of everyone living in areas without fluoride in the water look like then?

 

Nope, but this is common...

[saveourwater]

You mean this leaflet - get real, this interprets the evidence in a way understandable to the general public.

 

No, not that one. The one that was sent out to every home on the Island. After the first version had been re-printed because of the factual inaccuracy about the Water Authority of course.

[VinnieK]

Nope, but this is common...

 

If only there were some way to prevent having fillings! It may be the dream of a madman, but I imagine some kind of brush like tool, combined with a magic paste like substance could help. I would call it a mouthbroom.

 

Anyway, so the point of posting the original picture of extreme and advanced tooth decay that can't possibly be representative example of anything other than serious personal neglect...? Oh yeah, the same kind of lame scare tactics as those used by the anti-mob. Great.

[camembert]

Ok, show me the evidence that brushing reduces the incidence of tooth decay!

[VinnieK]

Are you mental?

[ballaughbiker]

If only there were some way to prevent having fillings

Water fluoridation would eventually reduce tooth decay significantly. Whilst it obviously wouldn't negate the need for fillings/crowns/extractions for current sufferers over a decade or two the number of new decay cases would reduce dramatically. These people would have lifetime protection and over a generation or three, decay would become a thing of the past.

 

Both sides here have shown extreme cases which isn't helpful. Sorry to mention my mate Neil again. You will remember he is a dentist in the West Midlands (might even be Incandescent's dentist) who was born there, qualified at Birmingham Uni in the 70s and has worked there ever since. He reckons he has seen a handful of cases that SOW has illustrated so someone is over egging the pudding. SOW's posting has intimated that all kids in fluoridated areas would end up looking like the recently posted photo and that's utter bollox. Why on earth would dentists/health professionals/proper research scientists/governments etc etc want that? What they don't want is rampant rot as the other extreme cases illustrates. They don't want kids being gassed. They don't want kids having pain and suffering over a lifetime and yes they dont want the expense of it all. Prevention will always be better than cure and fluoride is a very powerful preventative measure for one of man's most common diseases. Its all very well showing a toothbrush. I had one of those and I used it. I had caring parents who took me to the dentist regularly and I've still got a mouthful of fancy but toxic metal. Some people my age have got a mouthful of acrylic 'cos their teeth have had to be removed. I am convinced that if I had lived in a fluoridated area that would not have been the case.

 

Neil says (and I agree) that even if the scenario described by SOW was the case, the mottled teeth are a **** site easier to repair than the black stumps in the other picture!!!

 

Now as to whether we should force people to have these good teeth against their wishes is a completely different but not unrelated argument.

[jimbms]

Now as to whether we should force people to have these good teeth against their wishes is a completely different but not unrelated argument.

Exactly my argument no one should have to endure forced medication

[manxiememe]

Hiya

 

Surely if there was better dental treatment on the island then it would be less likely to own a set of those wonderfully manky teeth...

 

To me, it comes back down to education and awareness, don't tell me they didn't know their teeth were minging...

[Chinahand]

I love the comment about drawing on material from the saveourwater website - just compare saveourwater's pictures of fluorosis with these ones from this New Zealand site - scaremongering.

 

Scaremongering? How? The images of fluorosis on our website www.saveourwateriom.com (LINK) are official Dean Index images taken from an Irish government document, they can be found HERE - LINK Page 37 of the report (page 38 of 61 on the pdf).

 

You really are a fool aren't you - or are you a knave?

 

Your website has 6 images on it.

 

I cannot identify 2 of these, but the fluorosis shown in these two images is at a level similar to that of the most severe fluorosis.

 

You also have images of very mild, mild, moderate and severe fluorosis.

 

Why don't you show pictures of questionable fluorosis? By far the most common incidence of this problem?

 

So lets do the percentages -

 

50% of the photos on your site highlights severe fluorosis

16.67% moderate

16.67% mild

16.67% very mild

0% questionable

0% normal

 

Now let us look at the actual incidence for fluorosis as shown in the report you recommend:

 

I have deliberatel used the WORST fluorosis incidence reported (that of 15 year olds)

 

1.03% Severe

1.03% Moderate

5.15% Mild

10.31% Very Mild

19.59% Questionable

62.89% Normal

 

So you do not have pictures showing 82.5% of the population's teeth - normal and questionable.

 

You over emphasize Severe fluorosis by a factor of nearly 50 fold (48.5 if you want to be pedantic)

You over emphasize Moderate fluorosis by a factor of over 15 fold (16.1 if you want to be pedantic)

You over emphasize mild fluorosis by a factor of over 3 fold (3.2 if you want to be pedantic)

You over emphasize very mild fluorosis by a factor of nearly 2 fold (1.6 if you want to be pedantic)

 

Not showing a picture of questionable fluorosis makes your claims disengenuous.

 

While your total obsession with the extremes highlights your scaremongering, distorting tactics used throughout your crusade to save the Island from following World Health Organization best practice for ensuring society has the best oral health at the least cost.

[Chinahand]

I ask saveourwater, incandesent etc - why would the New Zealand Ministry of Health lie and distort about this issue? Or the CDC, or the WHO? They all say it is a safe, cost effective way of reducing dental caries.

 

Oh I don't know Chinahand, why could that be? Why would agencies that endorse fluoridation in countries that fluoridate maintain their position?

 

What planet do you live on - the New Zealand ministry of health has responsibility for controling good health in a country of 4 million people. They have huge power and access to a diversity of opinions. Do you really believe they will just whisper amoungst themselves that they've made a mistake, but can't change their mind. Tinhat fool.

 

What about the United States Food and Drug Adminisration? This is literally one of the most powerful organizations in the world - they can, and have, taken on and demanded some of the largest multinational corporations withdraw medicines which have had billions of dollars spent attempting to get them approved.

 

They demand rigourous testing, evidence, and control the quality and claims made about food and drugs in the US.

 

And what do they say? This

 

Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries

 

FDA reviewed the sources and cited statements in their context and in light of existing authorized health claims and current science. The following three statements are considered authoritative for purposes of this notification.

 

Recommendation for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control, 2001):

 

"Widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries (i.e., tooth decay) in the United States and other economically developed countries. When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling dental caries. All U.S. residents are likely exposed to some degree of fluoride, which is available from multiple sources." (Summary section, page 1)

"Continue and extend fluoridation of community drinking water: Community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive way to prevent dental caries. This modality benefits persons in all age groups and of all SES, ...." (Recommendation section, page 24)

Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General (2000):

 

"Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing dental caries in both children and adults. Water fluoridation benefits all residents served by community water supplies regardless of their social or economic status. Professional and individual measures, including the use of fluoride mouth rinses, gels, dentifrices, and dietary supplements and the application of dental sealants, are additional means of preventing dental caries." (Executive summary)

Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (Public Health Service, 1991):

 

"Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoride areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident." (Conclusions section, page 87)

 

Which as ever shows that Manx journalism is lazy and willing to parrot distortions spread by people with an agenda. Come on Manx journalists - don't you know about fact checking and how to use google.